Comment Re:Next go after textbooks and the schools that ma (Score 2) 97
The government will not do that. Raping the poor and the students is the american way.
The government will not do that. Raping the poor and the students is the american way.
Everyone This thursday, no free bagels at all apple offices. We have to pay the fine.
Yes their thursday bagel expense is about the same as their fine.
The super old MIG-29 can also kick it's arse.
Honestly Why the hell has this aircraft entered into use? It's a piece of crap from day one.
There are no innocents in the eyes of the overlord.
I dont like Mister Sheen, he always smells of Liquor and you constantly hear, "WINNING!" at random times.
I find this an interesting statement. Running the numbers, I find that you'd have to be using a rocket burning something rather better than H2/O2 (we're talking Isp >500 just to reach escape speed, much less to reach the target rock) to allow two launches of a delta-IV heavy.
Huh?
The fact that a Delta-IV Heavy has a LEO payload of over 27 tonnes is a fact. You don't need to "run the numbers". As for the kick stage, I didn't specify a propulsion system - for all we care (since we haven't established a timeframe), it could be an ion drive and not even take a rocket so large as a Delta IV-Heavy.
Meanwhile, the Falcon Heavy is to make its first launch this year, with double the payload of a Delta IV-Heavy. And as was mentioned, the Tsar Bomba was not optimized to be as lightweight as possible.
And this entirely ignores that noone actually has a Tsar Bomba sized nuke available to be detonated.
Oh, and you didn't allow for a backup
It's almost as if I didn't add "with enough advance warning" for that scenario and leave what "enough advance warning" is unspecified. But if there's another rock the size of the Chicxulub impactor out there and we don't see it until the last second, we deserve to get hit - we're no longer talking about a 50 meter spec (Tunguska-sized), rather a rock with a cross section 30% bigger than the island of Manhattan. We're talking about an impact of a scale that happens once every hundred million years or so.
A more appopriate version of the BBC's article:
---------------
OMG - matti makkonen
---------------
WTF - mm just died @63! #txtpioneerdeath was father of sms & dvlped idea of txt msg with phones. @2012 msged BBC that txt would be here "4EVR".
--------------
shoutout 2 Nokia for spreading sms w/Nokia 2010. thought txt good 4 language. was btw mng. director of Finnet ltd and "grand old man" & rly obsessed with tech.
--------------
OMFG people!
If he has any brains, simply send every time there is "discovery" the same sheet of paper proving he has had it for 15 years.
You can tell the plaintiffs lawyers to go fuck them selves over and over and over again.
I have actually used the words "go fuck yourself" in response to a lawyers letter.
Lawyers hate being called out as the spineless slime they are.
It is not only possible, but the easiest option, to "blow them up Armageddon style" (minus the drilling and the like). There's a lot of simulation work going on right now and the results have been consistently encouraging that even a small nuclear weapon could obliterate quite a large asteroid into little fragments that won't re-coalesce, while simultaneously kicking them out of their current orbit. A few years ago they were just doing 2d calcs, now they've gotten full 3d runs.
Think for a second about what nuclear weapons can do on Earth. Here's the crater of a 100kt nuclear weapon test. It's 100 meters deep and 320 meters wide. You could nearly fit a sizeable asteroid like Itokawa inside the hole. And that thing had Earth's intense gravity field working against it and was only 1/10th the size of weapons being considered here. In space you don't need to "blast out" debris with great force like on Earth, you merely need to give it a fractional meter-per-second kick and it's no longer gravitationally bound. And the ability of a nuclear shockwave to shatter rock is almost unthinkably powerful - just ignoring that many if not most asteroids are rubble piles and thus come already pre-shattered. Look at the "rubble chimneys" kicked up by even small nuclear blasts several kilometers underground (in rock compressed by Earth's gravity). Or the size of the underground cavity created by the wimpy 3kT Gnome blast - 28000 cubic meters. Just ignoring that it had to do that, again, working against Earth's compression deep underground, if you scale that up to a 1MT warhead the cavity would be the size of Itokawa itself.
You of course don't have to destroy an asteroid if you don't want to - nuclear weapons can also gently kick them off their path. Again, you're depositing energy in the form of X-rays into the surface of the asteroid on one side. If it's a tremendous amount of energy, you create a powerful shattering shockwave moving throughout the body of the asteroid. If it's lesser, however, you're simply creating a broad planar gas/plasma/dust jet across the asteroid, turning that whole side into one gigantic thruster that will keep pushing and kicking off matter until it cools down.
The last detail is that nuclear weapons are just so simple of a solution. There's no elaborate spacecraft design and testing program needed - you have an already extant, already-built device which is designed to endure launch G-forces / vibrations and tolerate the vacuum of space, and you simply need to get it "near" your target - the sort of navigation that pretty much every space mission we've launched in the past several decades has managed. In terms of mission design simplicity, pretty much nothing except kinetic impactors (which are far less powerful) comes close, and even then it's a tossup. Assuming roughly linear scaling with the simulations done thusfar, with enough advance warning, even a Chicxulub-scale impactor could be deflected / destroyed with a Tsar Bomba-sized device with a uranium tamper. Even though it was not designed to be light for space operations, its 27-tonne weight could be launched to LEO by a single Delta-IV Heavy and hauled off to intercept by a second launch vehicle.
No evidence other than the fact that the summary and article indicate a 5% loss of efficiency due to bug debris? Or are you accusing NASA of just pulling an arbitrary number out of their asses? Hmm... who to believe...
And I'll bet no one has thought of dimpling an airplane wing before. Oh, wait...
Uber drivers are subsidized by everybody else. Taxi drivers have to pay high insurance rates because the act of driving a long distance every day for a ton of strangers is a job that inherently leads to a much higher statistical rate of payouts. If they're driving as a taxi on regular car insurance, it's you that's paying the bill for their swindle of the insurance system.
Lemon Pledge. No seriously. The high dollar aircraft windshield treatment for bugs and water called Plexus is nothing more than Pledge wax with no scent.
Lemon pledge is used heavily by high mileage motorcyclists for years.
American corporations will instead do the following.
Get a government grant for the coatings, claim the actual full purchase price at full retail as the cost and pass that cost to ticket buyers.
Use the 5% fuel savings as a
Also add the costs of the advertising to the ticket prices.
Profits go up an additional 75%, claim they need more government subsidies.
Yeah, wouldn't that be great if I had linked it in my first post, and then if you had actually read my post well enough to see it?
How do you come to that assumption?
By linking to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject?
A nuclear warhead has lots of trouble to even "hit" an asteroid.
Essentially every space mission we have launched for the past several decades has had to navigate with a far more precision than that needed to get close to an asteroid and activate a single trigger event when close by.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?