... Mostly because of a bad business model. They only built a handfull of planes running on a select route. Mass production and a better selection of flight times would have helped. One thing the Japanese are doing that is a great improvement over Concorde is they are going faster. Once you break the transsonic barrier (Mach=1) your drag is at a local peak, it then decreases for a bunch of mach numbers. There's a sweet spot around Mach 3 where the drag is really low... much lower than the Concorde was operating at. Faster speeds and lower drag mean less fuel consumption. Hence, more economic AND FASTER supersonic travel.
Your missing the point. What makes the Space Shuttle the Space Shuttle is the cargo bay. If you took the cargo bay away, it would shrink into a reusable capsule much like the Kliper.
The Kliper does not have the space to carry back a satellite, or a large dysfunctional piece of station. Hence why they are still planning on using Progress to ferry stuff up, and loading up Progress modules to deorbit and burn garbage on reentry. Kliper is not a shuttle. Soyuz is maneuverable. Maneuverability doesn't factor in. Nor does reusablility.
The important issue is that the law (check google: every major university will refer to it as law, not theory) is in direct conflict with the ground rules of modern physics. Either modern physics are wrong... all of it, or Newton.
Laws are NOT observations. Laws are rules. Laws are do or die, if you don't follow the rules you can't exist. Observations are theories.
It isn't really a shuttle. If your definition of "shuttle" is reusable then OK it's a shuttle. But the reason the US space shuttle was called "the shuttle" is because of the payload bay. The space shuttle was to be used to routinely shuttle stuff to and from space.
The Kliper can't do that.
The Kliper is basically an upgraded resuable Soyuz that can host 7 people (good for station) and a basic amount of payload. A Soyuz is a three part contraption of which only 1 module returns to earth and none is resued. The Kliper is just a single piece reusable capsule that's stretched. It launches like a capsule - on the tip of a rocket. It reenters like a capsule (unless they opt for wings... the judges are still out on that one). It's not a shuttle.
To call it a shuttle is almost a misgnomer... it's not a shuttle like a space shuttle: there's no cargo bay. It's not a space truck like the US Shuttle was. It's basically a reusable one piece Soyuz. Yes, it's re-engineered and it can take seven to station with minimal payload, but it launches like a capsule - on the front of the rocket - and it should reenter like a capsule, unless they opt for the wings and thermal tile TPS. That part isn't clear at this point.
There are unresolved issues with Newton's law. Namely, gravity does not comply with the other rules of nature. If the sun were to instantaneously disappear, Newton's law says that the earth should then instantaneously lose the gravitational pull of the sun and start flying off into space.
But we know from Einstein and other sources that the fastest information can travel is the speed of light, irrelevant of frame of reference.
Obviously you've never lived in one of the northern Great Plains states. It still gets very cold. My home state, Wisconsin, has set record cold temperatures in recent years.
I'd be interested in seeing a Google Maps project showing where people who support and oppose global warming are from, I'd imagine the returns diminish as lattitude increases!
My meat isn't pumped full of drugs either. Guess you haven't been to a real farm. I grew up in the midwest, on a dairy farm no less. We also raised cattle for beef. Short of immunizations for communicable diseases there was no "pumping meat full of drugs." Your oversensionalization is just justifying your trollish nature.
It's not hard, in fact, it's easy to find meat and milk that is rBGH free, and free of other hormones, even if you aren't in the midwest. Any decently stocked grocery store will be able to hook you up.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot comprehend. I've been there and done that.
They are the product of natural interactions between natural creatures. Breeding us not an unnatural process. We're not talking cat-dogs.
And yea. Venison jerkey and rabbit stew is yummy. But I also enjoy my T-bone steak and my Tacos
-everphilski-
Well, seeing as the cow and chicken are products of nature, they are by definition natural.
Look at the lion. The eagle. They eat meat. Why shouldn't we? Look at your ancestors who ate meat before you. Look at historical records. Why not? Because we think we are morally superior? We are intellectually superior, therefore we have the innate right to eat what can't outrun us.
Mojave is where they did all the R&D. Mojave is a spaceport already. It would make sense to open up shop there. There are other spaceports already in existance - Oklahoma spaceport has been in existance for six years now.
Burt Rutan gave a speech at an AIAA conference and one prototype trajectory he gave showed launching over the Pacific ocean and landing in Mojave. Lots of pretty scenery (ocean and desert) lots of good abort options, and you wind up where the hangar is.
He wasnt up there 2 years straight. Back on earth the bone mass can regen because of the strain put on the bones. But yea supposedly he does better than most at retaining his bone mass.
Calcium suppliments don't help. The problem is your body realises that you have too much muscle mass and that you are too strong for microgravity, so it stops reinforcing your bones until it percieves a need to strengthen your bones. It's not a lack of available calcium. It is the exact same phenomenon that plagues people on bedrest. Even though they are given the best food and nutrition available when they are off bedrest they are weak and frail.
Any orbital mechanics textbook will give you more than enough information to calculate this for yourself. One of my final exam questions in spacecraft design was to design a moon mission, in about 15 minutes. Mars isn't much harder, just further away, it's the same problem.
"Elements of Spacecraft Design" by Charles D. Brown has a few good chapters on orbital mechanics. Check a local university library, cause the book cost me nigh unto $100:P
Yup. You have to do trade studies with lots of iterations. On one axis you have launch date, on the other you have arrival date, and you start plotting. You can then vary your trans-martian-injection burn, and what your get are called Porkchop plots, cause they look like porkchops.
The saying is "From low earth orbit, you are halfway to anywhere in the solar system." The delta-V (change in velocity) required to get to low earth orbit is about 7.6 m/s neglecting gravity and drag losses. The velocity to escape is about 13 m/s. Add in a little bit of velocity to correct your orbit to make it to Mars and it's about right, 14 m/s. (actually it'll be a bit more if you're launching from Kennedy, you have to get rid of that pesky inclination and that's an expensive maneuver, even combining it with the trans-martian injection it's expensive.
Here's the actual procedure.
1. surface to low earth orbit.
2. circularize low earth orbit. [hohmann transfer]
3. correct orbital parameters (longitude of ascending node, argument of periapsis, orbital inclination)
4. low earth orbit to trans-martian-injection [hohmann transfer]
(3 and 4 can be combined, to a point, in order to save delta-V.)
5. burn to circularize martian orbit [hohmann transfer]
6. correct orbital parameters (Same as 3)
7. Burn to descend to surface
The actual math is too much for a slashdot post. Sorry. If you are truly curious check out "Elements of Spacecraft Design" by Charles D. Brown.
Oh, wow. Sarcasm. And a whiff of troll. But I'll bite.
I have young children. We drive a car, it gets better mileage than a minivan. The children, my wife, and the stroller do not all fit in the cabin. The stroller goes in the trunk. If we're going shopping, that's where whatever groceries we buy go.
Just cause your single and have not a care in the world doesn't mean the rest of us don't need our trunks. The rest of us are trying to balance the family and being socially/environmentally responsible, but at this stage hybrids like this AREN'T the answer. I'd need a SUV size vehicle to accomodate my family, and that would ruin the cost savings. I'll stick to my 30+ MPG saturn, thanks.
I had a Microsoft Word document delivered to me that was corrupt (it would read fine and edit fine... but I couldn't PDF it for distrobution) so I tried RTFing it... the file was an order of magnitude larger (went from 25mb to in excess of 300mb)
If you are heavy on the style and images (in my case, engineering reports) RTF's suck.
Slashdot Mirror
... Mostly because of a bad business model. They only built a handfull of planes running on a select route. Mass production and a better selection of flight times would have helped. One thing the Japanese are doing that is a great improvement over Concorde is they are going faster. Once you break the transsonic barrier (Mach=1) your drag is at a local peak, it then decreases for a bunch of mach numbers. There's a sweet spot around Mach 3 where the drag is really low ... much lower than the Concorde was operating at. Faster speeds and lower drag mean less fuel consumption. Hence, more economic AND FASTER supersonic travel.
-everphilski-
Your missing the point. What makes the Space Shuttle the Space Shuttle is the cargo bay. If you took the cargo bay away, it would shrink into a reusable capsule much like the Kliper.
The Kliper does not have the space to carry back a satellite, or a large dysfunctional piece of station. Hence why they are still planning on using Progress to ferry stuff up, and loading up Progress modules to deorbit and burn garbage on reentry. Kliper is not a shuttle. Soyuz is maneuverable. Maneuverability doesn't factor in. Nor does reusablility.
-everphilski-
gnomer, cause the little guys with the funny hair are way cooler than the city in Alaska.
-everphilski-
The important issue is that the law (check google: every major university will refer to it as law, not theory) is in direct conflict with the ground rules of modern physics. Either modern physics are wrong... all of it, or Newton.
Laws are NOT observations. Laws are rules. Laws are do or die, if you don't follow the rules you can't exist. Observations are theories.
-everphilski-
It isn't really a shuttle. If your definition of "shuttle" is reusable then OK it's a shuttle. But the reason the US space shuttle was called "the shuttle" is because of the payload bay. The space shuttle was to be used to routinely shuttle stuff to and from space.
The Kliper can't do that.
The Kliper is basically an upgraded resuable Soyuz that can host 7 people (good for station) and a basic amount of payload. A Soyuz is a three part contraption of which only 1 module returns to earth and none is resued. The Kliper is just a single piece reusable capsule that's stretched. It launches like a capsule - on the tip of a rocket. It reenters like a capsule (unless they opt for wings... the judges are still out on that one). It's not a shuttle.
-everphilski-
To call it a shuttle is almost a misgnomer... it's not a shuttle like a space shuttle: there's no cargo bay. It's not a space truck like the US Shuttle was. It's basically a reusable one piece Soyuz. Yes, it's re-engineered and it can take seven to station with minimal payload, but it launches like a capsule - on the front of the rocket - and it should reenter like a capsule, unless they opt for the wings and thermal tile TPS. That part isn't clear at this point.
-everphilski-
There are unresolved issues with Newton's law. Namely, gravity does not comply with the other rules of nature. If the sun were to instantaneously disappear, Newton's law says that the earth should then instantaneously lose the gravitational pull of the sun and start flying off into space.
But we know from Einstein and other sources that the fastest information can travel is the speed of light, irrelevant of frame of reference.
That's one example of Newton's law breaking down.
-everphilski-
They aren't laws. They are observations. They don't tell us WHY things happen they way they do, they merely model the interactions.
-everphilski-
Peter: I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-everphilski-
Obviously you've never lived in one of the northern Great Plains states. It still gets very cold. My home state, Wisconsin, has set record cold temperatures in recent years.
I'd be interested in seeing a Google Maps project showing where people who support and oppose global warming are from, I'd imagine the returns diminish as lattitude increases!
-everphilski-
Apparently you've never been to South Dakota... yes, there's room.
-everphilski-
"Fox is running one of those new reality shows at 8:00... Fast animals, slow children"
-everphilski-
My meat isn't pumped full of drugs either. Guess you haven't been to a real farm. I grew up in the midwest, on a dairy farm no less. We also raised cattle for beef. Short of immunizations for communicable diseases there was no "pumping meat full of drugs." Your oversensionalization is just justifying your trollish nature.
It's not hard, in fact, it's easy to find meat and milk that is rBGH free, and free of other hormones, even if you aren't in the midwest. Any decently stocked grocery store will be able to hook you up.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot comprehend. I've been there and done that.
-everphilski-
They are the product of natural interactions between natural creatures. Breeding us not an unnatural process. We're not talking cat-dogs.
And yea. Venison jerkey and rabbit stew is yummy. But I also enjoy my T-bone steak and my Tacos
-everphilski-
My grandfather wields a double barreled shotgun. Another indication of mankind's domination over the animals.
-everphilski-
Well, seeing as the cow and chicken are products of nature, they are by definition natural.
Look at the lion. The eagle. They eat meat. Why shouldn't we? Look at your ancestors who ate meat before you. Look at historical records. Why not? Because we think we are morally superior? We are intellectually superior, therefore we have the innate right to eat what can't outrun us.
Fucking troll.
-everphilski-
unable to connect to database (user: root@localhost, using password=false)
-everphilski-
Mojave is where they did all the R&D. Mojave is a spaceport already. It would make sense to open up shop there. There are other spaceports already in existance - Oklahoma spaceport has been in existance for six years now.
Burt Rutan gave a speech at an AIAA conference and one prototype trajectory he gave showed launching over the Pacific ocean and landing in Mojave. Lots of pretty scenery (ocean and desert) lots of good abort options, and you wind up where the hangar is.
-everphilski-
He wasnt up there 2 years straight. Back on earth the bone mass can regen because of the strain put on the bones. But yea supposedly he does better than most at retaining his bone mass.
-everphilski-
Calcium suppliments don't help. The problem is your body realises that you have too much muscle mass and that you are too strong for microgravity, so it stops reinforcing your bones until it percieves a need to strengthen your bones. It's not a lack of available calcium. It is the exact same phenomenon that plagues people on bedrest. Even though they are given the best food and nutrition available when they are off bedrest they are weak and frail.
-everphilski-
Any orbital mechanics textbook will give you more than enough information to calculate this for yourself. One of my final exam questions in spacecraft design was to design a moon mission, in about 15 minutes. Mars isn't much harder, just further away, it's the same problem.
:P
"Elements of Spacecraft Design" by Charles D. Brown has a few good chapters on orbital mechanics. Check a local university library, cause the book cost me nigh unto $100
-everphilski-
Yup. You have to do trade studies with lots of iterations. On one axis you have launch date, on the other you have arrival date, and you start plotting. You can then vary your trans-martian-injection burn, and what your get are called Porkchop plots, cause they look like porkchops.
-everphilski-
The saying is "From low earth orbit, you are halfway to anywhere in the solar system." The delta-V (change in velocity) required to get to low earth orbit is about 7.6 m/s neglecting gravity and drag losses. The velocity to escape is about 13 m/s. Add in a little bit of velocity to correct your orbit to make it to Mars and it's about right, 14 m/s. (actually it'll be a bit more if you're launching from Kennedy, you have to get rid of that pesky inclination and that's an expensive maneuver, even combining it with the trans-martian injection it's expensive.
Here's the actual procedure.
1. surface to low earth orbit.
2. circularize low earth orbit. [hohmann transfer]
3. correct orbital parameters (longitude of ascending node, argument of periapsis, orbital inclination)
4. low earth orbit to trans-martian-injection [hohmann transfer]
(3 and 4 can be combined, to a point, in order to save delta-V.)
5. burn to circularize martian orbit [hohmann transfer]
6. correct orbital parameters (Same as 3)
7. Burn to descend to surface
The actual math is too much for a slashdot post. Sorry. If you are truly curious check out "Elements of Spacecraft Design" by Charles D. Brown.
-everphilski-
Oh, wow. Sarcasm. And a whiff of troll. But I'll bite.
I have young children. We drive a car, it gets better mileage than a minivan. The children, my wife, and the stroller do not all fit in the cabin. The stroller goes in the trunk. If we're going shopping, that's where whatever groceries we buy go.
Just cause your single and have not a care in the world doesn't mean the rest of us don't need our trunks. The rest of us are trying to balance the family and being socially/environmentally responsible, but at this stage hybrids like this AREN'T the answer. I'd need a SUV size vehicle to accomodate my family, and that would ruin the cost savings. I'll stick to my 30+ MPG saturn, thanks.
-everphilski-
I had a Microsoft Word document delivered to me that was corrupt (it would read fine and edit fine ... but I couldn't PDF it for distrobution) so I tried RTFing it ... the file was an order of magnitude larger (went from 25mb to in excess of 300mb)
If you are heavy on the style and images (in my case, engineering reports) RTF's suck.
-everphilski-