It seems to me that SpaceX spent some time engineering and building a good, reliable engine in the Merlin 1C / Merlin Vacuum. Those 9 engines on the first stage are just 1 more than the 8 on the Saturn 1B, and the Saturn 1B used 8 redstone tanks cobbled together + 1 central tank, really a kludge of a rocket if you ask me.
Initial reports have that it was the 1st stage, the Russian built stage that failed on Korea's rocket. I'm not sure i've got this right but, an aft looking camera on board showed a bright flash just before they lost communications. Then the rocket's performance dropped and it veered off course before exploding.
It was a very smart move on their part.
Yes. A very smart move. Using what is basically only a single engine type on both stages was a smart move as well. Their use of pneumatic cylinders to push the stages apart seems to be working well (as opposed to using solid fuel retrorockets). I think using RP-1/LOX was a smart move as well. This minimizes problems and costs associated with handling toxic fuels or liquid hydrogen.
The Russians have mastered the RP-1/LOX combo. SpaceX seems to have pushed the performance of American engines up a notch.
I read that their budget was the korean equivalent of about $500 Million. I'm not sure what SpaceX spent, but I believe it probably was in the same ballpark. But SpaceX developed both stages, while RoK just developed the small upper stage & shroud for their rocket. They used a Russian developed 1st stage. Also the Falcon 9 rocket has a much larger payload capacity than the Naro-1.
Score: Falcon 9, Naro-1
currently launches most if not all of its payloads on decommissioned Russian ICBMs
And the Atlas V uses engines made in Russia. And even the Falcon 9 follows the Russian design philosophy, use LOX-Kerosine propellant in all stages, use multiple smaller engines instead of few hard to produce humongous engines, use the same engine as much as possible, make it strong, and reliable.
SpaceX can take the weekend to party, but they've got work ahead of them for future flights. Aside from working on the Dragon capsule, the first stage crew can resolve the problems involved with recovering the stage, and the second stage crew can work on controlling the roll.
You might call 7 politicians launched into space not worthwhile, but I call it a start.;) As long as they stayed up there, and didn't come back down again.
Well large passenger jets aren't falling out of the sky, but a few years back, the forest service grounded a bunch of its firefighting aircraft because a wing folded up and broke off as it was banking in a turn. There was even video of it happening.
This was due to metal fatigue on an old airframe.
The text in your linked article said 1 and a half inches, but pictures said only 1/2 inch. I'll believe the pictures.
A year or to ago, my brother showed me some snapshots of those wings when they were about to be tested. (He's an engineer for a large, Seattle based aerospace company who works on technology to manufacture composite wings.)
I'ld say that modern medicine allows the gene pool to diversify, allowing
people to live and pass on their genes that wouldn't otherwise do so. Should
at sometime in the future these medicines or procedures not become available,
those prodgeny would die off, but the people with the healthy genes would
still be around. The gene pool diversity would then shrink back down.
Ok, but what about a couple who, because of genetic testing, know that if they
have a child, there is a high likelihood of that child developing a particular
disease or medical condition. Should the insurance company be allowed to
charge more to the couple for insurance for any child the couple should have?
It is the parents who choose whether or not to have the child. They have the
option of adopting a healthy child. Now it's the insurance company who wouldn't
have the choice but would have to pay for the medical care an affected child would
need. That's not right either.
I think that something like that would be a good way to compensate CEOs. They get a modest salary, say $50K, and the rest of their compensation is in the form of stocks. X shares per year served. But but they would get only 1/3 of those shares each year for the following three years. If they leave the company in bad or deteriorating shape, the shares are going to be worth squat. Big rewards for doing a good job. Peanuts if they do a lousy job.
Customer expectations concerning the quality of computers has risen over the years. What customers considered good quality 15 years ago, is not acceptable in today's market. Apparantly Gateway's quality didn't rise as much as its customer's expectations.
Today when one purchases a computer, It's quite reasonable to expect it to work correctly right out of the box. There's been ample time to engineer the problem areas out of the box.
This is a lot like what happened in the automotive industry back in the 1970's. American producers were content with producing cars with 1950's quality levels. Along came the Japonese and the quality of their cars improved so fast as to blow the american models out of the water. After a some tough years american manufacturers began to wise up and started paying attention to the numerous (mostly small) defects that plagued their cars.
Gateway's sales have been declining for a number of years now. Actually, before HP bought Compaq, I thought that Gateway would have been a good acquisition for HP. If I'd been on Gateway's board then, I sure would have looked into the possibility.
You seem to have a rather naive view of economics and politics, although some of the
point you make have a degree of validity.
With unregulated capitalism, you get the situation like we had in the early 1900s. You can't say that was good for the tens of thousands of coal miners who were loosing their lives because of unsafe mining conditions. You also seem to forget that those environmental laws you seem to abhor are the ones that are preventing the guy who owns the property next to yours from storing toxic chemicals in rusting containers on that lot, or from putting that smelly hog confinement operation there (with the s#*t running off into your backyard when it rains).
I could give a hundred more examples. I'm sure others could give thousands more. Try
educating yourself on what really happens with weak government and few regulations.
Tons of jobs, but none are for people over 45. None.
If you're educated, experienced, a good programmer and you interview well, you will absolutely have zero trouble getting a programming job for 75K+ - as long as you're in a city that has a decent tech industry.
Complete bullshit! I'm certainly not the world's best SW engineer, but I'd
certainly bet I can still outdo most of them. Rarely do I even get a chance to interview (like once every three months). Hundreds and hundreds of companies contacted, no offers. Resume has been reworked by professionals several times as well. No offers.
And remember, this is a painting, not a photograph. Leonardo could have painted
in any kind of teeth that he desired. He could have painted nice straight pearly whites just as easily as the smile that is there.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that SpaceX spent some time engineering and building a good, reliable engine in the Merlin 1C / Merlin Vacuum. Those 9 engines on the first stage are just 1 more than the 8 on the Saturn 1B, and the Saturn 1B used 8 redstone tanks cobbled together + 1 central tank, really a kludge of a rocket if you ask me.
Initial reports have that it was the 1st stage, the Russian built stage that failed on Korea's rocket. I'm not sure i've got this right but, an aft looking camera on board showed a bright flash just before they lost communications. Then the rocket's performance dropped and it veered off course before exploding.
It was a very smart move on their part.
Yes. A very smart move. Using what is basically only a single engine type on both stages was a smart move as well. Their use of pneumatic cylinders to push the stages apart seems to be working well (as opposed to using solid fuel retrorockets). I think using RP-1/LOX was a smart move as well. This minimizes problems and costs associated with handling toxic fuels or liquid hydrogen.
The Russians have mastered the RP-1/LOX combo. SpaceX seems to have pushed the performance of American engines up a notch.
I read that their budget was the korean equivalent of about $500 Million. I'm not sure what SpaceX spent, but I believe it probably was in the same ballpark. But SpaceX developed both stages, while RoK just developed the small upper stage & shroud for their rocket. They used a Russian developed 1st stage. Also the Falcon 9 rocket has a much larger payload capacity than the Naro-1.
Score: Falcon 9, Naro-1
currently launches most if not all of its payloads on decommissioned Russian ICBMs
And the Atlas V uses engines made in Russia. And even the Falcon 9 follows the Russian design philosophy, use LOX-Kerosine propellant in all stages, use multiple smaller engines instead of few hard to produce humongous engines, use the same engine as much as possible, make it strong, and reliable.
Mars, as in Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_Regional_Spaceport
SpaceX can take the weekend to party, but they've got work ahead of them for future flights. Aside from working on the Dragon capsule, the first stage crew can resolve the problems involved with recovering the stage, and the second stage crew can work on controlling the roll.
You might call 7 politicians launched into space not worthwhile, but I call it a start. ;)
As long as they stayed up there, and didn't come back down again.
Yes, we could go back to that style of farming. Just beware that about 2 billion people would then starve to death in the next year or two.
Yeah, cows is always better than dem horses. But I'm ok with having them walk on the treadmills. Oh, here's a pie i just made especially for you.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft. That ought to keep one server going for an hour.
Well large passenger jets aren't falling out of the sky, but a few years back, the forest service grounded a bunch of its firefighting aircraft because a wing folded up and broke off as it was banking in a turn. There was even video of it happening. This was due to metal fatigue on an old airframe.
A year or to ago, my brother showed me some snapshots of those wings when they were
about to be tested. (He's an engineer for a large, Seattle based aerospace company who works on technology to manufacture composite wings.)
I'ld say that modern medicine allows the gene pool to diversify, allowing people to live and pass on their genes that wouldn't otherwise do so. Should at sometime in the future these medicines or procedures not become available, those prodgeny would die off, but the people with the healthy genes would still be around. The gene pool diversity would then shrink back down.
Ok, but what about a couple who, because of genetic testing, know that if they have a child, there is a high likelihood of that child developing a particular disease or medical condition. Should the insurance company be allowed to charge more to the couple for insurance for any child the couple should have? It is the parents who choose whether or not to have the child. They have the option of adopting a healthy child. Now it's the insurance company who wouldn't have the choice but would have to pay for the medical care an affected child would need. That's not right either.
Actually, he did. I believe that the verse says that they would die IN THE SAME DAY that they ate the fruit, which they surely did not.
They could rename it 'Silly, Corny Graphics'.
This is a lot like what happened in the automotive industry back in the 1970's. American producers were content with producing cars with 1950's quality levels. Along came the Japonese and the quality of their cars improved so fast as to blow the american models out of the water. After a some tough years american manufacturers began to wise up and started paying attention to the numerous (mostly small) defects that plagued their cars.
Gateway's sales have been declining for a number of years now. Actually, before HP bought Compaq, I thought that Gateway would have been a good acquisition for HP. If I'd been on Gateway's board then, I sure would have looked into the possibility.
Ah! One poster complains about Gateway not doing anything innovative, the next complains about them being innovative. Something's not right here.
With unregulated capitalism, you get the situation like we had in the early 1900s. You can't say that was good for the tens of thousands of coal miners who were loosing their lives because of unsafe mining conditions. You also seem to forget that those environmental laws you seem to abhor are the ones that are preventing the guy who owns the property next to yours from storing toxic chemicals in rusting containers on that lot, or from putting that smelly hog confinement operation there (with the s#*t running off into your backyard when it rains).
I could give a hundred more examples. I'm sure others could give thousands more. Try educating yourself on what really happens with weak government and few regulations.
Considering the rapid spread of avian flu lately, I wouldn't be putting all my eggs in one basket.
Er - maybe I should say, the eggs in my basket wouldn't all be chicken eggs.
If you're educated, experienced, a good programmer and you interview well, you will absolutely have zero trouble getting a programming job for 75K+ - as long as you're in a city that has a decent tech industry.
Complete bullshit! I'm certainly not the world's best SW engineer, but I'd certainly bet I can still outdo most of them. Rarely do I even get a chance to interview (like once every three months). Hundreds and hundreds of companies contacted, no offers. Resume has been reworked by professionals several times as well. No offers.
And remember, this is a painting, not a photograph. Leonardo could have painted in any kind of teeth that he desired. He could have painted nice straight pearly whites just as easily as the smile that is there.
I'd say 83% sexually satisfied, 9% disappointed