Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Solid rockets - Real Answer (Score 1) 121

Actually they unzip down the side of the case. They stop at the aft segment though. That's enough to release the pressure though. RSO hands are not going to be anywhere near the button unless something is going wrong. But yeah half a second at most when the decision is made-transmitting the signal and propagating it thru the system will likely take as long. And NASA calls them RSOs, but they call themselves (M)FCOs (Mission Flight Control Officers)

Comment Re:Solid rockets (Score 1) 121

I thought all the extinguishable solid rocket motors were the hybrids-a solid propellant ignited by a liquid/gaseous oxidizer. Stop the flow of the oxidizer and the engine turns off. Hybrids are usually not grouped with pure solids. Most (or all I believe) solid propellants in use today mix and the fuel and oxidizer and just require an ignition source and then it is a self-sustaining operation,at least inside the rockets itself, which is why they can not be turned off.

Comment Re:Hydrochloric acid? (Score 1) 121

The LH2 by itself is the best fuel by Isp, but it comes at the price of enlarged tanks to hold it. There are some other fuels that provide a slightly better comparison based on dry mass for tanking and engine and such. LH2/LO2 technology is pretty well understood and fairly reliable but cryogenics provide other problems. The right choice of propellant depends on the tradeoffs.

Comment Re:Shuttle SRBs are neither cheap nor reliable (Score 2) 121

Solids do have some advantages over liquids. Primarily acceleration. But for human payloads, liquid rocket engines make more sense--particularly if an accident does occur, the engines can be shut off, allowing escape rockets to take the passengers away from the rest of the rocket. This is the Ares rocket's biggest problem--there are periods of time where the escape rocket may not be able to escape the solid vehicle underneath it..

Comment Re:Of course... (Score 1) 542

The solution is to have the majority of countries, or at least those with the bulk of the money, blackball those countries who try to low ball everything. Additionally, to write their tax codes such that corps in their own country who try to avoid taxes still have to pay. The goal at the end is that each country would have a roughly equal chance to attract companies, and a framework for taxation of multi-nationals can also be achieved and be somewhat equitable. I agree that it should be a world wide leveling. But it also means nailing the cheapest bastards. Because that hurts the corporations that take advantage of the cheapest bastards you have to go after both the countries and the corporations. And given that most politicians are paid more by the corporations than by the countries, it is unfortunately highly unlikely to happen.

Comment Re:What a typical waste (Score 2, Interesting) 401

The fact that Apple has used the 'i' in their product names, mean that Video Pod is unlikely to dilute the Apple trademark. No one would confuse Video Phone with the Apple product, I say likewise for the word Pod. These cases should be quickly tossed out. Not associated with the legal system as I don't what little reputation I do have to suffer greatly.

Comment Re:Headline FAIL (Score 1) 178

Trust me, NASA's ability to identify & estimate risks is sub par at best. But they are getting better. Those you listed are among the chief risks. But the biggest risk in space flight has always been human error. Mainly because you don't launch unless you've addressed the external environmental risks. Stress just increases the chance for human error. All that means though is that the chance of a catastrophic failure goes up from about 1.6% per launch to 3 or 4%. Hopefully that's all. NASA will probably says those odds are more like 500 to 1 or maybe in the range from 75-150 to 1 (they'll blame most of that on micrometeorites and orbital debris), but they said the chance of a Challenger disaster was 100,000 to 1.

Comment Re:They collected $75,000... (Score 1) 650

You are right about your post in general. The sticking point is that 'minimum standard' and 'minimize risk' part. My job is risk analysis. You'll never minimize risk. You can minimize within reason (cost, time, etc.) plus what is one person' minimum is excessive to another. My point is that some of these rules have gone well beyond minimums-an apparent cash grab in many cases.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...