Realistic impact, no. I was going more along the lines that we wouldn't be contributing to global warming, and to an infinitesimal degree, helping reduce it.
On the point of existing ships that use water cooling systems in their engines, those systems are still causing a net heating because the heat produced by the engines came from energy given off from burning fossil fuels, not using mechanical energy from the ocean.
Re:how is using sea water for cooling cool???
on
The Google Navy
·
· Score: 1
Since servers convert all energy to heat,
Is that true? I'm not well versed in the actual workings of a server, but isn't part of the energy put into the mechanical energy of spinning hard drives? Granted, all of that energy will then turn into heat once the whole ship is shut down, but I would've figured that wouldn't happen until way in the future.
the effect of sunlight on the ship has to be taken into account.
True, but the heat from the sun would've gone into the ocean anyway, so having anything out in the ocean at all will still be neutral (from a sunlight standpoint).
Also, powering the data center using tidal power would be taking energy out of the ocean. While the water cooling would be dumping energy back into the ocean, it will be dumping in less energy than was taken out, so there should actually be a net cooling of the ocean.
Re:how is using sea water for cooling cool???
on
The Google Navy
·
· Score: 1
Well, the heat being given off by the servers would have come from the mechanical energy that was initially taken out of the ocean. The heat is being dumped back into the ocean, so actually, there will be a net heat loss in the water because energy is being used to run the servers.
Actually, this really sucks because the rockets were used to LOWER the ISS. What a waste. I wonder how much warning they get before estimated impact.
Actually, they were planning to lower the ISS for the next few missions anyway so that the shuttle would be able to bring up more cargo than usual. This maneuver wasn't so much a waste as it would seem to be.
Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812.
Do you think that the Civil War wasn't a legitimate war? Also WWI and WWII. I think that those were legitimate threats. Hitler wanted to take over the world. If he continued down the line, we definitely would have to worry about what he's doing (if anyone can recall, think about the Season 4 opener of Star Trek: Enterprise)
I can not impose my moral beliefs on anyone other than myself - even my girl thinks I'm nuts. I lack the ability to force compliance with my beliefs. This is true with many people. This is the crux of my position.
You bring up a good point about not being able to impose your beliefs on anyone else. Really, you shouldn't be imposing your beliefs on others.
A counterpoint that I learned from Church is that it's helpful to find someone that has the similar beliefs as you. Being a Christian, getting married to another Christian gives you a spiritual point that you can share with one another. It's a deeper connection that you can make with your spouse.
Then why is it considered by many for sex between two men to be immoral? The ancient Greeks had no problem with it. It used to be unethical to practice usury, now thats the standard.
When people talk of ethics, they seem to speak as an individual communicating the the agreed terms of a larger community.
People don't seem to make ethics a personal deal, it's like they view it as a rule over many, but people see their morals as very individual and unique things.
I think that, with Republicans, gay sex is just a moral issue. However, once they brought it into the arena of legislation, it turned into an ethics issue, because now, the lawmakers have to set an example. If they don't follow the ideals that they are trying to push, they are just hypocrites. I'm not so up to date on what Larry Craig's public stance on gay marriage in sex was, but once he was caught, he was stuck trying to get out of an ethical quandary.
I love the phrase they taught me in high school computer science:
"The spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak" translates in Russian to "The vodka is great, but the meat is rotten"
Don't you know that by taking a picture, you're sucking out the soul of the Earth.
Besides, this light could've gone off into the universe, or at least the other side of the cabin or into someone's eyes and their brain, but no, you had to suck up this light and put it inside a camera.
Better to have something last 100 times longer than what you expect than to have it die on you before you reach half the life expectancy, don't you think? At least give some credit to the guys who did a hell of a job making these things so robust.
It's remarkable how much longer these guys have still been alive even after they already completed their originally planned goals. Here's one thing that NASA did right.
Just to note, this was not her first time as Commander. In fact, she made history as the first female Commander 6 years ago when she flew STS-93 in 1999.
I'm not sure, but I think it is. We are still in the competition phase for the new CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) contract, and the final award won't be presented until January of next year. The design shown in the NYT article is the one proposed by Northrop-Grumman, but Lockheed Martin is also developing a CEV, one that more resembles a space plane. You can read the article at http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1534 782.html?page=1&c=y for more. It doesn't seem like they say much about how it's going to get into orbit though.
Yes, a bird did hit the tank. Or so the photographs seem to show a bird hitting the tank. They're looking at it closely to make sure it didn't do anything to the orbiter.
Then don't get off the ground. End of story. This industry will always have risk, and the question is are they brought down to an acceptable level. We've done numerous tests on the ET foam, we've redesigned the bipod area, we've replaced the stuff with heaters. We've developed a boon for detection of cracks, we've developed a tile repair kit and goo to do an EVA tile patch up. We've also developed a rescue plan in the event none of these things have helped. We've gone a long way, and we've done a hell of a lot of stuff to make this program safer. The risk level is acceptable. Otherwise, none of those 7 astronauts would be willing to fly on that thing. We're ready to fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of disbarment, does anyone know what the status of Jack Thompson is?
Realistic impact, no. I was going more along the lines that we wouldn't be contributing to global warming, and to an infinitesimal degree, helping reduce it. On the point of existing ships that use water cooling systems in their engines, those systems are still causing a net heating because the heat produced by the engines came from energy given off from burning fossil fuels, not using mechanical energy from the ocean.
Since servers convert all energy to heat,
Is that true? I'm not well versed in the actual workings of a server, but isn't part of the energy put into the mechanical energy of spinning hard drives? Granted, all of that energy will then turn into heat once the whole ship is shut down, but I would've figured that wouldn't happen until way in the future.
the effect of sunlight on the ship has to be taken into account.
True, but the heat from the sun would've gone into the ocean anyway, so having anything out in the ocean at all will still be neutral (from a sunlight standpoint).
Also, powering the data center using tidal power would be taking energy out of the ocean. While the water cooling would be dumping energy back into the ocean, it will be dumping in less energy than was taken out, so there should actually be a net cooling of the ocean.
Well, the heat being given off by the servers would have come from the mechanical energy that was initially taken out of the ocean. The heat is being dumped back into the ocean, so actually, there will be a net heat loss in the water because energy is being used to run the servers.
Last year it was reported that pirate attacks rose by 14%
Does this mean that we should soon see a lowering of the global average temperature?
Actually, this really sucks because the rockets were used to LOWER the ISS. What a waste. I wonder how much warning they get before estimated impact.
Actually, they were planning to lower the ISS for the next few missions anyway so that the shuttle would be able to bring up more cargo than usual. This maneuver wasn't so much a waste as it would seem to be.
Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812.
Do you think that the Civil War wasn't a legitimate war? Also WWI and WWII. I think that those were legitimate threats. Hitler wanted to take over the world. If he continued down the line, we definitely would have to worry about what he's doing (if anyone can recall, think about the Season 4 opener of Star Trek: Enterprise)
I can not impose my moral beliefs on anyone other than myself - even my girl thinks I'm nuts. I lack the ability to force compliance with my beliefs. This is true with many people. This is the crux of my position.
You bring up a good point about not being able to impose your beliefs on anyone else. Really, you shouldn't be imposing your beliefs on others. A counterpoint that I learned from Church is that it's helpful to find someone that has the similar beliefs as you. Being a Christian, getting married to another Christian gives you a spiritual point that you can share with one another. It's a deeper connection that you can make with your spouse.
Then why is it considered by many for sex between two men to be immoral? The ancient Greeks had no problem with it. It used to be unethical to practice usury, now thats the standard.
When people talk of ethics, they seem to speak as an individual communicating the the agreed terms of a larger community.
People don't seem to make ethics a personal deal, it's like they view it as a rule over many, but people see their morals as very individual and unique things.
I think that, with Republicans, gay sex is just a moral issue. However, once they brought it into the arena of legislation, it turned into an ethics issue, because now, the lawmakers have to set an example. If they don't follow the ideals that they are trying to push, they are just hypocrites. I'm not so up to date on what Larry Craig's public stance on gay marriage in sex was, but once he was caught, he was stuck trying to get out of an ethical quandary.
I love the phrase they taught me in high school computer science: "The spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak" translates in Russian to "The vodka is great, but the meat is rotten"
Don't you know that by taking a picture, you're sucking out the soul of the Earth. Besides, this light could've gone off into the universe, or at least the other side of the cabin or into someone's eyes and their brain, but no, you had to suck up this light and put it inside a camera.
Better to have something last 100 times longer than what you expect than to have it die on you before you reach half the life expectancy, don't you think? At least give some credit to the guys who did a hell of a job making these things so robust.
It's remarkable how much longer these guys have still been alive even after they already completed their originally planned goals. Here's one thing that NASA did right.
This is very old news. It came out almost 2 months ago.
Just to note, this was not her first time as Commander. In fact, she made history as the first female Commander 6 years ago when she flew STS-93 in 1999.
I'm not sure, but I think it is. We are still in the competition phase for the new CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) contract, and the final award won't be presented until January of next year. The design shown in the NYT article is the one proposed by Northrop-Grumman, but Lockheed Martin is also developing a CEV, one that more resembles a space plane. You can read the article at http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1534 782.html?page=1&c=y for more. It doesn't seem like they say much about how it's going to get into orbit though.
Yes, a bird did hit the tank. Or so the photographs seem to show a bird hitting the tank. They're looking at it closely to make sure it didn't do anything to the orbiter.
Then don't get off the ground. End of story. This industry will always have risk, and the question is are they brought down to an acceptable level. We've done numerous tests on the ET foam, we've redesigned the bipod area, we've replaced the stuff with heaters. We've developed a boon for detection of cracks, we've developed a tile repair kit and goo to do an EVA tile patch up. We've also developed a rescue plan in the event none of these things have helped. We've gone a long way, and we've done a hell of a lot of stuff to make this program safer. The risk level is acceptable. Otherwise, none of those 7 astronauts would be willing to fly on that thing. We're ready to fly.