Welcome to the world of 'Intellectual Property'. The owners of huge amounts of IP demand they be given lots of money on the premise that this will ultimately (through some only vaguely specified mechanism) result in artists being rewarded for the quality of their work.
The difference between you and I, is that I would call you a sniveling little shit who would rather snipe at someones character than address their points, whilst you would suggest in a sideways manner that I am immature.
You are being just as offensive as I am; the only difference is I have the nerve and intellectual honesty to be upfront about it. You are just a weasel.
You think its unacceptable for me to speak to someone like this when they have just been extremely condescending to me whilst at the same time flunking basic fucking rocket science?
Fuck your politeness. Fuck your manners. I am right, can produce evidence to back it up, and I will not to be talked down to by the arrogant and the stupid, and that includes you.
The debate is about getting it done cheaply and quickly; So yes the 'better' design is not the question when one design is further along (and has some of its creases ironed out; we don't know what problems DIRECT might come across).
If it were about the best design for the job, there wouldn't be SDLVs at all.
Oh no, some anonymous little turd is threatening me and mocking me on the Internet, whatever shall I do now!?
I like how you know nothing about rocket science but feel free to comment in this thread anyway because you find my tone a little too harsh. If you think I am going to reconsider how I speak to little shits you based on anything you have said you are out of your mind.
I don't suffer fools, either in real life or on the Internet. If someone is stupid and arrogant (as you and the first person I responded to clearly are) I believe in calling them on it. I don't believe in fueling peoples delusions of adequacy. Your inability to do anything but bitch at my style rather than address my points demonstrates that you are more concerned with petty points-scoring than actual debate. If you weren't such a fucktard you might grasp the concept of a logic fallacy.
South Africa had nukes - 6 primitive gun-type bombs - but got rid of them. Officially for reasons of peace and brotherhood and bollocks like that, in reality because the government saw which way the wind was blowing and didn't want 'darkies' with nuclear weapons.
If you are indeed as capable to make the comparison as you claim to be (which I consider unlikely, even if you have done work with NASA, as you can't possibly be privy to the full picture) then fair enough; however even to an expert paper projects always look better than ones that are in the process of being implemented.
I haven't worked with NASA, but I have worked in various industries and I can spot the symptoms of compulsive bandwagon jumping a mile off. The grass is only greener in the artists impression, and in practically every case incremental improvements to existing structures are preferable to radical overhauls, no matter how slickly they are sold.
And sold slickly they are. The ability to sway everyone to your ideas and the ability to come up with ideas that will run in practice are completely separate skills, but the former tends to get you a lot further in large organizations than the latter. Everybody wants their idea to be the one that carriers the whole group forward, and practically every manager I have met in my life is a sucker for an (apparent) quick fix.
Perhaps I am being too conservative (in the literal, not political, sense) but my personal work history has meant magic bullets always set off alarm bells in my head, especially when someone new comes along with the notion of making their mark on the organization.
I'm supposed to take being talked down to by a mongloid who thinks having a rocket be top heavy is a bad thing? Ares I is, in fact, bottom-heavy and thus not aerodynamically stable. Furthermore, shuttle SRBS do have a thrust vectoring capability - otherwise the Ares I design wouldn't have been proposed by anyone at NASA in the first place.
Seeing as how the basic idea of DIRECT has been around for decades (the wikipedia article on it even has drawings of the concept from 1978) the idea that the people who decided on Ares were ignorant of DIRECT is utter bullshit.
If you are going to come with that cock 'Bzzzt! Wrong' bullshit you had better check your own damn facts first, idiot. As for assuming I am a conservative (or even American) - well that just compounds the idiocy you've spewed over this forum.
At least one of the N-1 failures was caused by a single engine blowing up and taking the whole lot (30 in the first stage IIRC) with them. Soviet engineers could not test the cluster on the ground because there wasn't a stand big enough.
Depends on the type of 'fail'. The kind of fail that Saturn V could recover from is distinct from the kind of fail that turned N-1 into a fireball on four occasions.
The only person here more of a wanker than you is the person who modded you up. Despite what your snide little remark suggests, there is plenty of development done on a rocket before the assembled thing is delivered to the launchpad. Either you are completely ignorant of how space flight works or you are just being a dick to fill the void of inadequacy at the core of your being. Either way, STFU.
Whether or not the design is better is largely irrelevant to this debate; what is relevant is the DIRECT team are failing to take into account the overhead of switching projects and switching managers at this stage. Regardless of which was the better approach, DIRECT lost the debate some time ago, and revisiting it now (even if it results in a better vehicle in the long run) isn't going to make anything either cheaper or quicker.
Of course DIRECT is "cheaper, quicker and safer" than Ares - because it is a paper project. All projects are cheaper, quicker, safer, happier, and will make your cock bigger etc etc until someone tries to implement them.
If any of the problems of developing a SDLV that have plagued Ares so far occur for Jupiter, then switching at this point will be a false economy.
Wrong. Creating for profit gives you the motivation to create trash just get get paid. If people only had monetary motivations, there would be no scientists because anyone smart enough to get a science degree could just as easily work in the financial sector for a lot, lot more money.
You are confusing fascism with resistance to fascism. There is a moral difference between state violence motivated by expediency and citizen violence against the state motivated by outrage.
You have many tools in your disposal to oppose them: the soap box,
They control the media, and I can't shout loud enough. I could build a transmitter to get my views out but I would be arrested. There is always the Internet, but unless this post kicks off an anti-government protest, I think it is safe to say that will not work
the ballot box,
A choice between several different authoritarian corporate shills. Won't change a thing.
the jury box,
Spoken like someone who has never worked for the UK 'justice' system
and only as the absolute last rest, the ammo box. Do not confuse the order; for I, for one, do not welcome another Krystalnacht.
You are a moron, a sheep and a coward. Fear of violence is not pacifism, its just fear.
Yes. Lets have another cuppa and roll out the red carpet for those who are no better than the fascists we fought again two generations ago. The killing of Mussolini was such an act of insanity, they should've just written a strongly worded letter to il duce
What the hell is wrong with that woman? More to the point, what the hell is wrong with us? In any sane society a person like that would've been strung up from a lamppost a long time ago.
It comes from research conducted by the US army, which contrary to what one nut on snopes says hasn't been debunked; the reason kill rates have gone up is because, with a better understanding of the psychology of killing, military training programmes have changed.
My point was that there isn't a real consensus, there is simply a concentration of force. Wikipedia tribalism has little to do with honest group decision making.
If you expect civil society and all it's benefits to remain intact during a predicted doomsday scenario of this size, you're either being idealistic or truly naive.
In WW2, only 15% of soldiers actually shot at the enemy - and they were under fire and had been explicitly trained to kill. Even in a truly life-or-death situation, humans are not nearly as violent as disaster melodramas like to make out.
In times of hardship and disaster, the default mode of most humans is cooperation not competition. People pull together in hard times, which can be verified in Britain by talking to people alive during the war.
Yep, me too. I was one of them pointing out that the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" shouldn't be used in the editorial voice, and in fact Wikipedia's own policies say this. Unfortunately, I was making this point on the 9/11 page and was met with a shower of virtual feces from the caged monkeys camping the article.
In a way Wikipedia is a victim of its own popularity; because it is the number 1 Google hit for most subjects editors see it as a billboard for their political views, and fight tooth and nail against anyone with either a contrary opinion or a genuine desire to create an encyclopedia article.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the world of 'Intellectual Property'. The owners of huge amounts of IP demand they be given lots of money on the premise that this will ultimately (through some only vaguely specified mechanism) result in artists being rewarded for the quality of their work.
The difference between you and I, is that I would call you a sniveling little shit who would rather snipe at someones character than address their points, whilst you would suggest in a sideways manner that I am immature.
You are being just as offensive as I am; the only difference is I have the nerve and intellectual honesty to be upfront about it. You are just a weasel.
You think its unacceptable for me to speak to someone like this when they have just been extremely condescending to me whilst at the same time flunking basic fucking rocket science?
Fuck your politeness. Fuck your manners. I am right, can produce evidence to back it up, and I will not to be talked down to by the arrogant and the stupid, and that includes you.
Fuck you.
The debate is about getting it done cheaply and quickly; So yes the 'better' design is not the question when one design is further along (and has some of its creases ironed out; we don't know what problems DIRECT might come across).
If it were about the best design for the job, there wouldn't be SDLVs at all.
Oh no, some anonymous little turd is threatening me and mocking me on the Internet, whatever shall I do now!?
I like how you know nothing about rocket science but feel free to comment in this thread anyway because you find my tone a little too harsh. If you think I am going to reconsider how I speak to little shits you based on anything you have said you are out of your mind.
I don't suffer fools, either in real life or on the Internet. If someone is stupid and arrogant (as you and the first person I responded to clearly are) I believe in calling them on it. I don't believe in fueling peoples delusions of adequacy. Your inability to do anything but bitch at my style rather than address my points demonstrates that you are more concerned with petty points-scoring than actual debate. If you weren't such a fucktard you might grasp the concept of a logic fallacy.
The point is, that engine failures are necessarily the nice sort where an engine just stops working. Some can destroy the vehicle.
South Africa had nukes - 6 primitive gun-type bombs - but got rid of them. Officially for reasons of peace and brotherhood and bollocks like that, in reality because the government saw which way the wind was blowing and didn't want 'darkies' with nuclear weapons.
If you are indeed as capable to make the comparison as you claim to be (which I consider unlikely, even if you have done work with NASA, as you can't possibly be privy to the full picture) then fair enough; however even to an expert paper projects always look better than ones that are in the process of being implemented.
I haven't worked with NASA, but I have worked in various industries and I can spot the symptoms of compulsive bandwagon jumping a mile off. The grass is only greener in the artists impression, and in practically every case incremental improvements to existing structures are preferable to radical overhauls, no matter how slickly they are sold.
And sold slickly they are. The ability to sway everyone to your ideas and the ability to come up with ideas that will run in practice are completely separate skills, but the former tends to get you a lot further in large organizations than the latter. Everybody wants their idea to be the one that carriers the whole group forward, and practically every manager I have met in my life is a sucker for an (apparent) quick fix.
Perhaps I am being too conservative (in the literal, not political, sense) but my personal work history has meant magic bullets always set off alarm bells in my head, especially when someone new comes along with the notion of making their mark on the organization.
I'm supposed to take being talked down to by a mongloid who thinks having a rocket be top heavy is a bad thing? Ares I is, in fact, bottom-heavy and thus not aerodynamically stable. Furthermore, shuttle SRBS do have a thrust vectoring capability - otherwise the Ares I design wouldn't have been proposed by anyone at NASA in the first place.
Seeing as how the basic idea of DIRECT has been around for decades (the wikipedia article on it even has drawings of the concept from 1978) the idea that the people who decided on Ares were ignorant of DIRECT is utter bullshit.
If you are going to come with that cock 'Bzzzt! Wrong' bullshit you had better check your own damn facts first, idiot. As for assuming I am a conservative (or even American) - well that just compounds the idiocy you've spewed over this forum.
At least one of the N-1 failures was caused by a single engine blowing up and taking the whole lot (30 in the first stage IIRC) with them. Soviet engineers could not test the cluster on the ground because there wasn't a stand big enough.
More to the point, when a hard-drive has a head crash, it doesn't explode and take the entire rack with it.
Depends on the type of 'fail'. The kind of fail that Saturn V could recover from is distinct from the kind of fail that turned N-1 into a fireball on four occasions.
The only person here more of a wanker than you is the person who modded you up. Despite what your snide little remark suggests, there is plenty of development done on a rocket before the assembled thing is delivered to the launchpad. Either you are completely ignorant of how space flight works or you are just being a dick to fill the void of inadequacy at the core of your being. Either way, STFU.
Whether or not the design is better is largely irrelevant to this debate; what is relevant is the DIRECT team are failing to take into account the overhead of switching projects and switching managers at this stage. Regardless of which was the better approach, DIRECT lost the debate some time ago, and revisiting it now (even if it results in a better vehicle in the long run) isn't going to make anything either cheaper or quicker.
Of course DIRECT is "cheaper, quicker and safer" than Ares - because it is a paper project. All projects are cheaper, quicker, safer, happier, and will make your cock bigger etc etc until someone tries to implement them.
If any of the problems of developing a SDLV that have plagued Ares so far occur for Jupiter, then switching at this point will be a false economy.
Wrong. Creating for profit gives you the motivation to create trash just get get paid. If people only had monetary motivations, there would be no scientists because anyone smart enough to get a science degree could just as easily work in the financial sector for a lot, lot more money.
That isn't a bad idea. I could sell my technical skills to the pirates of the sea to the northeast of Africarrrr!
You are confusing fascism with resistance to fascism. There is a moral difference between state violence motivated by expediency and citizen violence against the state motivated by outrage.
They control the media, and I can't shout loud enough. I could build a transmitter to get my views out but I would be arrested. There is always the Internet, but unless this post kicks off an anti-government protest, I think it is safe to say that will not work
A choice between several different authoritarian corporate shills. Won't change a thing.
Spoken like someone who has never worked for the UK 'justice' system
You are a moron, a sheep and a coward. Fear of violence is not pacifism, its just fear.
Yes. Lets have another cuppa and roll out the red carpet for those who are no better than the fascists we fought again two generations ago. The killing of Mussolini was such an act of insanity, they should've just written a strongly worded letter to il duce
What the hell is wrong with that woman? More to the point, what the hell is wrong with us? In any sane society a person like that would've been strung up from a lamppost a long time ago.
All the need to do is write something on their tits then
Nursing is not obscene and doing it publicly is not exhibitionism. A photo of you having the stick removed from you arse would be obscene though.
It comes from research conducted by the US army, which contrary to what one nut on snopes says hasn't been debunked; the reason kill rates have gone up is because, with a better understanding of the psychology of killing, military training programmes have changed.
My point was that there isn't a real consensus, there is simply a concentration of force. Wikipedia tribalism has little to do with honest group decision making.
In WW2, only 15% of soldiers actually shot at the enemy - and they were under fire and had been explicitly trained to kill. Even in a truly life-or-death situation, humans are not nearly as violent as disaster melodramas like to make out.
In times of hardship and disaster, the default mode of most humans is cooperation not competition. People pull together in hard times, which can be verified in Britain by talking to people alive during the war.
Yep, me too. I was one of them pointing out that the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" shouldn't be used in the editorial voice, and in fact Wikipedia's own policies say this. Unfortunately, I was making this point on the 9/11 page and was met with a shower of virtual feces from the caged monkeys camping the article.
In a way Wikipedia is a victim of its own popularity; because it is the number 1 Google hit for most subjects editors see it as a billboard for their political views, and fight tooth and nail against anyone with either a contrary opinion or a genuine desire to create an encyclopedia article.