...can't they just lower some ropes and chains and pull up materials? We do it all the time in my treehouse. Seems easier than launching these dangerous shuttles.
Sure you can! If you can speed up whatever you want to bring to the space station to 17,500 mph, then they'll bring it up on a rope for you, because that's how fast they're going:) It's deceptive when you watch a launch because the shuttle looks like it's going thousands of miles into space, but it's really only going a few hundred miles up. Most of the fuel is spent on horizontal change in velocity so that it can reach a speed necessary to continuously "fall off the edge of the earth". The ISS is going so fast that it orbits the earth every 90 minutes. Compare that with how long it takes for a flight from California to New York (several hours) and you'll see just how amazing the ISS and Shuttle are:)
Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth? We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets. We can take over 'space exploration' by just skipping that part. "Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.
I think for the same reason the Space Shuttle can't visit BOTH the Hubble Telescope and the Space Station in one trip is the same reason why you wouldn't ever have a ship from beyond low earth orbit return to dock at the Space Station...the necessary changes in velocity would require too much fuel. Picture this: the ISS is orbiting earth at 17,000 mph, while the Apollo craft had to reach speeds of 25,000 mph to go to the moon. You don't just get to slow down for free in space, so would you rather launch your rocket from earth to bring more mass (computers, moon buggies, test equipment, etc.) to your destination? Or would you rather use fuel as that mass so you can slow down from deep space to dock at the station?
Are Sony and Microsoft in the red because they are losing money on Xbox and PS2? Or is it because they're financing development and production of their next generation hardware and software?
I personally see more innovation on Microsoft and Sony's part over Nintendo on next generation consoles (I hear Revolution isn't even going HD), and if indeed the losses are due to R&D, then perhaps Sony and Microsoft's losses aren't as bad as the article makes it seem.
Anyone can program a simple download client in an hour. Heck making a basic webserver is even doable for a person who knows the basics of C. It's getting a p2p client that actually has and surpasses the efficiency of bittorrent that's hard. Last time I checked, news sites rated bittorrent as consuming 35% of internet bandwidth. I'm not trying to flame, but bittorrent WORKS. Microsoft has a history of having problems with this...
I can see it now, Jack Bauer will be called in to interrogate the cybergeek users of bittorrent in Los Angeles.
Jack: (shoots suspect in leg)"WHERE ARE THE TERRORISTS!!?"
Geek: "I DON'T KNOW! I WAS ONLY DOWNLOADING STAR WARS EPISODE 3!!"
Jack: "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!" (proceeds to break geek's fingers)
Slashdot Mirror
...can't they just lower some ropes and chains and pull up materials? We do it all the time in my treehouse. Seems easier than launching these dangerous shuttles.
Sure you can! If you can speed up whatever you want to bring to the space station to 17,500 mph, then they'll bring it up on a rope for you, because that's how fast they're going :) It's deceptive when you watch a launch because the shuttle looks like it's going thousands of miles into space, but it's really only going a few hundred miles up. Most of the fuel is spent on horizontal change in velocity so that it can reach a speed necessary to continuously "fall off the edge of the earth". The ISS is going so fast that it orbits the earth every 90 minutes. Compare that with how long it takes for a flight from California to New York (several hours) and you'll see just how amazing the ISS and Shuttle are :)
Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth? We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets. We can take over 'space exploration' by just skipping that part. "Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.
I think for the same reason the Space Shuttle can't visit BOTH the Hubble Telescope and the Space Station in one trip is the same reason why you wouldn't ever have a ship from beyond low earth orbit return to dock at the Space Station...the necessary changes in velocity would require too much fuel. Picture this: the ISS is orbiting earth at 17,000 mph, while the Apollo craft had to reach speeds of 25,000 mph to go to the moon. You don't just get to slow down for free in space, so would you rather launch your rocket from earth to bring more mass (computers, moon buggies, test equipment, etc.) to your destination? Or would you rather use fuel as that mass so you can slow down from deep space to dock at the station?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women!
Allah bans YOU!
Well said. I hope Nintendo doesn't die out either, but geez, IMHO the last GREAT console they produced and supported was the SNES (/me ducks).
Are Sony and Microsoft in the red because they are losing money on Xbox and PS2? Or is it because they're financing development and production of their next generation hardware and software? I personally see more innovation on Microsoft and Sony's part over Nintendo on next generation consoles (I hear Revolution isn't even going HD), and if indeed the losses are due to R&D, then perhaps Sony and Microsoft's losses aren't as bad as the article makes it seem.
What else have you heard coming out of Finland recently?
New matter? It doesn't matter!
Who actually WANTS to be associated with internet explorer?
But honestly, how many Slashdotters do you think could pull off a Batman look?
Anyone can program a simple download client in an hour. Heck making a basic webserver is even doable for a person who knows the basics of C. It's getting a p2p client that actually has and surpasses the efficiency of bittorrent that's hard. Last time I checked, news sites rated bittorrent as consuming 35% of internet bandwidth. I'm not trying to flame, but bittorrent WORKS. Microsoft has a history of having problems with this...
The first being pr0n...this being anonymous pr0n!
I can see it now, Jack Bauer will be called in to interrogate the cybergeek users of bittorrent in Los Angeles. Jack: (shoots suspect in leg)"WHERE ARE THE TERRORISTS!!?" Geek: "I DON'T KNOW! I WAS ONLY DOWNLOADING STAR WARS EPISODE 3!!" Jack: "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!" (proceeds to break geek's fingers)
Are you telling me we aren't supposed to use HHKJK-D4FWY-34B2D-RB7K2-C2QVJ for all of our passwords?
You know, I never really thought of it that way...why are we paying for a movie twice? I think it's time this Galactic Empire got taken down...
The movie made $50 fucking million dollars on its opening day! Give me a fucking break.