The shuttle stack effectively throttles down when the solids burn out.
The SSME's are throttled to 74% or so mid solid flight to avoid max Q. reference. Check 6:36 pm.
One site I found says that there is a throttle down at 7:40.0 to 3G before MECO at 8:00.0 so acceleration can't be much above 3G at 7:40 and would surely not go above 5 at cut off without throttling.
I'm not convinced, but I don't have my numbers in front of me. Remember, towards the end of flight is when you are having the biggest fractional change in mass over time, which is the biggest change is acceleration
5G is OK for a human crew but outside design limits for the shuttle and the shuttle/ET combination, which must be the reason for keeping it at 3G.
The shuttle replacement (Constellation) is stacked vertically, yet the second stage engine (J2-X) retains the ability to throttle. It is very simple to convince yourself this is necessary! In order to get to space you need a lot more fuel than dry mass. (the equations are left to the interested student... I'll use a ballpark number) Lets say you need 15kg of fuel per 1kg of dry mass. The upper stage gets you half way there, delta-v wise, so you only need 7kg of fuel per remaining kg of mass. So you are clipping along at 3g at first stage burnout T=m*a. Now, you burn off 7/8ths of your mass. Thrust is constant, mass goes down by 7/8ths. Now tell me what happens to acceleration? It increases. Greatly:)
Carmack has reversed prior statements about OGL being better than DirectX. He now seems to prefer DirectX. It would be infinitely cool if DirectX could become a platform unto itself, with implementations for Mac and Linux. Then you would have a universal gaming language, per see, and they would (essentially, as if they don't already) have an exclusive lock on PC gaming, and be able to leverage that towards XBOX gaming.
No, not marketing nuts. Programmers. Its a 'free' as in beer API. I've programmed in it on and off over the past two years or so, and if you hang out at the usual places (gamasutra, gamedev.net, the official mailing list, etc.) you will find lots of users, most hobbyists and garage type programmers, who love the stuff and are digging deep into the API's and gladly help out the new comers. Just go look at the width and breadth of tutorials, sample code, etc. generated by non-Microsoft employees out there. It really is a community, in the truest sense.
If OpenGL could drum up the kind of community, you could generate some kind of seague into open source. But what do they have, really, beyond NeHe? a few college classes, really. Try comparing Riemers XNA Tutorial to say NeHe. IMO, Riemer is more in-depth, he goes over the derivations more than NeHe does (no offense to NeHe, I've drawn a lot from his work too learning OGL). And at the end you have a simple, functional game. Stuff like that, I think, is all the difference.
Of course, if the Shuttle was stacked vertically it wouldn't need to be throttled.
uh, yes you would. you might eliminate the need to throttle due to Q, but you would still have excessive acceleration for a human payload. The mass fraction of the ET is on the order of 25, IIRC, and several times heavier than the shuttle. When you are almost out of fuel, the 'm' in F=ma is several times lower than when you ignited, but F is constant because you are not throttling, so a is several times higher resulting in some unconscious astronauts.
DirectX is more than graphics, and is a lot higher level. I know. I have programmed both in the last year (simulation visualization). OpenGL is good but if you are doing games there is a lot that DirectX has to offer above and beyond.
yawn.
wake me up when Java supports operator overloading. And before you take the typical java stance of 'well-that's just syntactic sugar', bear in mind some of us write codes where 95% of the code is math, and we aren't adding and subtracting ints/floats/doubles/complex types.
vector.cross( vec2.times(matrix.identity.transpose()+mat2.invese rse())) + cross(v3,v4) is not an option.
Hot damn become the Drizzle, baby
So cold ya know we never fizzle, baby
So hot ya know we goin' sizzle, baby
He wanna catch you, catch you at the kizzle, baby
Hardcore. Old school stylin'
Ten digits, even got a platinum album.
got a cadilliac, city block long
even got Spider-Man swinging on a ding dong
So much money 100 kat diamond ring
My man drizzy drizz, drizz got everything
When you see him, give my man big respect
Because the Drizzy Drizz just might break ya neck
Uh...he's the Drizzle, baby
Yeah...uh....he's the f^&$ing Drizzle, baby
Yeah...uh....drizzy drizzy baby
He's the mother-f^&$ing Drizzle, baby
The difference apparently is between dynamically loading a whole bunch of different textures (as-needed, which is the traditional way of doing things), and paging through 1 texture.
Since the prevailing theory was global cooling in the 70's, global warming couldn't have existed for much more than 20ish years. But I suppose that can be debated. From another source, "The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue."
In short, you fail.
No. Go see my other post about the difference between fact and theory.
the user can share it, yes, but he doesn't have an inherant claim to the code just because it is GPL. IE, if I have a project I'm working on that is GPL, and someone asks me for it, I can say no. I can limit the distribution. But if you have a copy of my compiled code, then I owe you the source.
But I consider global warming a scientific fact nonetheless.
Evolution and the big bang are still considered theories, Newton's law of gravity, over 300 years old is still considered a theory, and you are telling me you consider global warming, which just cropped up over the last 10-20 years, is 'scientific fact'? Get out of here.
Check it out: Indeed, the collaboration has been ongoing. The Moonlight product team has made requests for resources; Microsoft has put them in touch with the "right people" inside and outside of Microsoft, according to Icaza.
The Mono team has been invited to participate in a roadmap presentation for Silverlight next week and will provide its recommendations for the platform. "Novell and Microsoft have an ongoing relationship," Icaza noted.
To Microsoft, an 'open standard' is one in which they get to hide certain details so that only their implementation works properly, of course.
ECMA standards are pretty transparent. And not run by Microsoft. Not to mention, they already have a working implementation working on Linux, did you not read the links I posted?
In Microsoft-speak 'cross-platform' (which is a term used on the Silverlight MSDN site) means that it runs on Windows XP and on Windows Vista.
Windows, Mac already officially supported on microsoft.com. Microsoft is in collaboration developing the Linux port. What more do you want?
Slashdot Mirror
linux networking stack exposed and now 3-way servers? Wowahweewah!
Let me turn the question back on you - compared to the BSD/MIT license, what additional freedoms are you allowed?
Note I caveated it: Yes, one of the most restrictive OS Licenses will keep us 'free'. /laugh.
The most restrictive open source license. Is there one more restrictive? Please, enlighten us. I can't think of one.
or free as in beer?
...
Inquiring minds would like to know
GPL will keep us free
/laugh.
Yes, one of the most restrictive OS Licenses will keep us 'free'.
pandering to your audience.
pageviews for the ads.
Taco doesn't give a fuck anymore.
The shuttle stack effectively throttles down when the solids burn out.
... I'll use a ballpark number) Lets say you need 15kg of fuel per 1kg of dry mass. The upper stage gets you half way there, delta-v wise, so you only need 7kg of fuel per remaining kg of mass. So you are clipping along at 3g at first stage burnout T=m*a. Now, you burn off 7/8ths of your mass. Thrust is constant, mass goes down by 7/8ths. Now tell me what happens to acceleration? It increases. Greatly :)
The SSME's are throttled to 74% or so mid solid flight to avoid max Q. reference. Check 6:36 pm.
One site I found says that there is a throttle down at 7:40.0 to 3G before MECO at 8:00.0 so acceleration can't be much above 3G at 7:40 and would surely not go above 5 at cut off without throttling.
I'm not convinced, but I don't have my numbers in front of me. Remember, towards the end of flight is when you are having the biggest fractional change in mass over time, which is the biggest change is acceleration
5G is OK for a human crew but outside design limits for the shuttle and the shuttle/ET combination, which must be the reason for keeping it at 3G.
The shuttle replacement (Constellation) is stacked vertically, yet the second stage engine (J2-X) retains the ability to throttle. It is very simple to convince yourself this is necessary! In order to get to space you need a lot more fuel than dry mass. (the equations are left to the interested student
Carmack has reversed prior statements about OGL being better than DirectX. He now seems to prefer DirectX. It would be infinitely cool if DirectX could become a platform unto itself, with implementations for Mac and Linux. Then you would have a universal gaming language, per see, and they would (essentially, as if they don't already) have an exclusive lock on PC gaming, and be able to leverage that towards XBOX gaming.
No, not marketing nuts. Programmers. Its a 'free' as in beer API. I've programmed in it on and off over the past two years or so, and if you hang out at the usual places (gamasutra, gamedev.net, the official mailing list, etc.) you will find lots of users, most hobbyists and garage type programmers, who love the stuff and are digging deep into the API's and gladly help out the new comers. Just go look at the width and breadth of tutorials, sample code, etc. generated by non-Microsoft employees out there. It really is a community, in the truest sense.
If OpenGL could drum up the kind of community, you could generate some kind of seague into open source. But what do they have, really, beyond NeHe? a few college classes, really. Try comparing Riemers XNA Tutorial to say NeHe. IMO, Riemer is more in-depth, he goes over the derivations more than NeHe does (no offense to NeHe, I've drawn a lot from his work too learning OGL). And at the end you have a simple, functional game. Stuff like that, I think, is all the difference.
c++ and c# are where I focus my efforts, personally. I love c++ but there are things about c# that are beautiful.
C++ has gone the way of Fortran
...
Sadly, I generate new Fortran code on a regular basis. I wish I was generating new C++
Of course, if the Shuttle was stacked vertically it wouldn't need to be throttled.
uh, yes you would. you might eliminate the need to throttle due to Q, but you would still have excessive acceleration for a human payload. The mass fraction of the ET is on the order of 25, IIRC, and several times heavier than the shuttle. When you are almost out of fuel, the 'm' in F=ma is several times lower than when you ignited, but F is constant because you are not throttling, so a is several times higher resulting in some unconscious astronauts.
DirectX is more than graphics, and is a lot higher level. I know. I have programmed both in the last year (simulation visualization). OpenGL is good but if you are doing games there is a lot that DirectX has to offer above and beyond.
yawn.
e rse())) + cross(v3,v4) is not an option.
wake me up when Java supports operator overloading. And before you take the typical java stance of 'well-that's just syntactic sugar', bear in mind some of us write codes where 95% of the code is math, and we aren't adding and subtracting ints/floats/doubles/complex types.
vector.cross( vec2.times(matrix.identity.transpose()+mat2.inves
I've never met anyone that was excited about windows.
Talk to some directX nuts sometimes. They get pretty excited about it.
(Drizzle baby)
(to the rescue)
Yeah...uh
Hot damn become the Drizzle, baby
So cold ya know we never fizzle, baby
So hot ya know we goin' sizzle, baby
He wanna catch you, catch you at the kizzle, baby
Hardcore. Old school stylin'
Ten digits, even got a platinum album.
got a cadilliac, city block long
even got Spider-Man swinging on a ding dong
So much money 100 kat diamond ring
My man drizzy drizz, drizz got everything
When you see him, give my man big respect
Because the Drizzy Drizz just might break ya neck
Uh...he's the Drizzle, baby
Yeah...uh....he's the f^&$ing Drizzle, baby
Yeah...uh....drizzy drizzy baby
He's the mother-f^&$ing Drizzle, baby
(to the rescue)
(Drizzle, baby)
The difference apparently is between dynamically loading a whole bunch of different textures (as-needed, which is the traditional way of doing things), and paging through 1 texture.
Armadillo Aerospace
What does '10-20 years' have to do with anything?
Since the prevailing theory was global cooling in the 70's, global warming couldn't have existed for much more than 20ish years. But I suppose that can be debated. From another source, "The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue."
In short, you fail.
No. Go see my other post about the difference between fact and theory.
global warming is a theory.
the trend of a thermometer over the past 30 years is a fact, within the error bounds of the thermometer.
there **is** a difference.
the user can share it, yes, but he doesn't have an inherant claim to the code just because it is GPL. IE, if I have a project I'm working on that is GPL, and someone asks me for it, I can say no. I can limit the distribution. But if you have a copy of my compiled code, then I owe you the source.
Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter launches in 2008. And NASA's mapped the moon before. Like Clementine (SDI/NASA).
But I consider global warming a scientific fact nonetheless.
Evolution and the big bang are still considered theories, Newton's law of gravity, over 300 years old is still considered a theory, and you are telling me you consider global warming, which just cropped up over the last 10-20 years, is 'scientific fact'? Get out of here.
Uh, go re-read your GPL. Its available to the users, not to just any ehaggis asking for it.
Check it out: Indeed, the collaboration has been ongoing. The Moonlight product team has made requests for resources; Microsoft has put them in touch with the "right people" inside and outside of Microsoft, according to Icaza.
The Mono team has been invited to participate in a roadmap presentation for Silverlight next week and will provide its recommendations for the platform. "Novell and Microsoft have an ongoing relationship," Icaza noted.
To Microsoft, an 'open standard' is one in which they get to hide certain details so that only their implementation works properly, of course.
ECMA standards are pretty transparent. And not run by Microsoft. Not to mention, they already have a working implementation working on Linux, did you not read the links I posted?
In Microsoft-speak 'cross-platform' (which is a term used on the Silverlight MSDN site) means that it runs on Windows XP and on Windows Vista.
Windows, Mac already officially supported on microsoft.com. Microsoft is in collaboration developing the Linux port. What more do you want?