The users generally don't have a choice. Eg: a number of Motorola phones released in 2011 (Droid 3, Droid X2) will never see ICS, and while most released in 2012 will, the upgrades are still being rolled out.
https://forums.motorola.com/pages/00add97d6c
In an area with minimal/no light pollution, the Milky Way is about as hard to miss as the ground. It appears as a giant (10+ degree wide) ragged band with various dark spots and veins. At the right times of year/night, you can see it stretching from horizon to horizon.
But in most towns, it's just a faint bit of paleness near the zenith. And completely invisible in even a small city.
Virgin Galactic's ships (AFAIK) land at the same place they took off from. Doing sub orbital travel is a lot harder, (closer to orbital travel in some ways). But being able to travel to the other side of the planet in ~45 minutes would be cool...
Shuttle costs are weird. AFAIK, it's the most expensive launch vehicle (no matter how it's measured). Most of these are fixed costs, though. (standing army of matinence people, whether or not the shuttle flys and the like) It's not all that much more expensive to do 12 flights per year, than 0. Admittedly, 12 flights per year is nigh impossible with the system...
Go Russian and you're looking at $2.38k/kg for a Soyuz or Proton. Perhaps even less for a Volna. That launch rates are way down (2004 was the lowest year since 1961) is rather troubling, though.
I'm not sure about the per mile figures, but the rule of thumb for rocket travel is that your launch vehical will fail (often catestrophically) ~2% of the time. Do you total your car ~2% of the time you drive?
A lot. The moon is (IIRC) a bit over 1% of the mass of the earth. And it's mostly stuff like iron, oxygen, aluminum, and silicon. Long term and large scale mining *might* cause changes measurable with a good atomic clock (I'm feeling too lazy to calculate), but the amounts of mass needed are sufficiently large to be safely ignored for the duration of He-3 mining...
Private companies like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing? Yeah, The Atlas V and Delta 4 cheaper, but not by *that* much.
The cheapest boosters are quasi-government (Russian, specifically. Although the Ukranian Zenits shouldn't be all that expensive). And rather good (The Soyuz booster is perhaps the most reliable on the planet). There's also a reason why Zenits and Atlas IIIs and Vs use Energia derived hardware.
As far as fuel efficency goes, SSMEs are some of the best (chemical) engines out there.
All of the major companies (and some of the smaller ones) are going with expendable launchers. (Okay, so SpaceLaunch can reuse the L1011 that they drom the rockets from, but that's it.)
SpaceShip2 is just SpaceShip1 with more passengers, more safety(?), and a bit more downrange capability.
How far did any of the other X-Prize contestents get? I understand that no one else was anywhere near a manned attempt as of fall 2004.
> and get back into the f'ing classroom.
Aside from the year that you aren't allowed to enroll at that school because of your low grades.
Yes, that's speaking from experience. =/
Slashdot Mirror
Also, why are the skipping Overland Park?
The users generally don't have a choice. Eg: a number of Motorola phones released in 2011 (Droid 3, Droid X2) will never see ICS, and while most released in 2012 will, the upgrades are still being rolled out. https://forums.motorola.com/pages/00add97d6c
Is the computer sufficient to run a 3D printer?
Run it off the battery? My car (a 1999 Civic) can run the AC with the engine off...
In an area with minimal/no light pollution, the Milky Way is about as hard to miss as the ground. It appears as a giant (10+ degree wide) ragged band with various dark spots and veins. At the right times of year/night, you can see it stretching from horizon to horizon.
But in most towns, it's just a faint bit of paleness near the zenith. And completely invisible in even a small city.
Though an article with more technical details (I couldn't find anything going through the linked websites) might help.
People do care, but most of the response has been to release things with highly permissive licenses (GPL, CC, etc).
This seems like it can (and therefore will) be used to add "DRM" to paper.
Virgin Galactic's ships (AFAIK) land at the same place they took off from. Doing sub orbital travel is a lot harder, (closer to orbital travel in some ways). But being able to travel to the other side of the planet in ~45 minutes would be cool...
They make for a nice way of expressing tone and intent. ^_^
Shuttle costs are weird. AFAIK, it's the most expensive launch vehicle (no matter how it's measured). Most of these are fixed costs, though. (standing army of matinence people, whether or not the shuttle flys and the like) It's not all that much more expensive to do 12 flights per year, than 0. Admittedly, 12 flights per year is nigh impossible with the system...
Interesting PDF. I'll get back to you later on it.
Go Russian and you're looking at $2.38k/kg for a Soyuz or Proton. Perhaps even less for a Volna. That launch rates are way down (2004 was the lowest year since 1961) is rather troubling, though.
Soyuz and Proton are $2.38k/kg. I'm not willing to cheer for SpaceX until after they have a sucessful launch.
Last I checked (astronautix.com, spacex.com), you will still get more kg in orbit per dollar spent with RKK Energia than SpaceX.
I'm not sure about the per mile figures, but the rule of thumb for rocket travel is that your launch vehical will fail (often catestrophically) ~2% of the time. Do you total your car ~2% of the time you drive?
...a self assembling mining operation might be reasonable.
A lot. The moon is (IIRC) a bit over 1% of the mass of the earth. And it's mostly stuff like iron, oxygen, aluminum, and silicon. Long term and large scale mining *might* cause changes measurable with a good atomic clock (I'm feeling too lazy to calculate), but the amounts of mass needed are sufficiently large to be safely ignored for the duration of He-3 mining...
Assuming that nothing slows down or stops the current Space Exploration Initiative. ...anyone feel like giving Robert Zubrin a few billion ;)
If you're going to reduce the budget, how about starting with a program that takes up a significant part of it? NASA is ~0.7%, last I checked.
Private companies like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing? Yeah, The Atlas V and Delta 4 cheaper, but not by *that* much. The cheapest boosters are quasi-government (Russian, specifically. Although the Ukranian Zenits shouldn't be all that expensive). And rather good (The Soyuz booster is perhaps the most reliable on the planet). There's also a reason why Zenits and Atlas IIIs and Vs use Energia derived hardware. As far as fuel efficency goes, SSMEs are some of the best (chemical) engines out there.
Or you could do something rather like Mars Direct and just spin the who vehical, with a tether to the last stage of the launch system...
All of the major companies (and some of the smaller ones) are going with expendable launchers. (Okay, so SpaceLaunch can reuse the L1011 that they drom the rockets from, but that's it.)
SpaceShip2 is just SpaceShip1 with more passengers, more safety(?), and a bit more downrange capability.
How far did any of the other X-Prize contestents get? I understand that no one else was anywhere near a manned attempt as of fall 2004.
India has 4x the number of people as the US. Will there actually be a rise in demand?
> and get back into the f'ing classroom. Aside from the year that you aren't allowed to enroll at that school because of your low grades. Yes, that's speaking from experience. =/