Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Mojave? (Score 2) 391

There was a bird on a Shuttle when it launched at least once. That bird got the scare of its life. It also almost certainly died. Another pair of birds got hit by a shuttle and fell into the exhaust. So yes there are animals that got scared or died from the launches. That alone isn't reason enough to stop. Also Falcon has a minimal amount of toxic chemicals, at least compared to most launch vehicles. Brownsville isn't ideal, but it's not bad if their purpose is to avoid some of the bureaucracy--they won't get away from it completely, they'll still have to deal with the FAA, more in fact than they do now. Better than Mojave or anything inland by a great deal.

Comment: Re:It's not just the textbooks (Score 1) 446

by MurphyZero (#39239705) Attached to: Math Textbooks a Textbook Example of Bad Textbooks
In my first year of college I went to a branch campus of my university. They decided to have a 'First Annual' math contest for a modest prize. I had competed and done well at high school level and figured I could get the cash. The last problem was misworded so that it had an uninteresting answer (I think it was zero) ON my answer sheet, I answered both the problem as written and the stated how it should have been written and that answer. The other problems were also easy and I collected the prize. There was no second annual.

Comment: Re:Time for a launch loop (Score 1) 246

by MurphyZero (#35380024) Attached to: Glory Satellite Lost To Taurus XL Failure
That fully redundant system you designed costs $1 billion to launch a 10lb payload. There are several groups that could all be at fault here. CEO (makes decisions involving costs), Management (Choosing to cut corners, bad decisions), Engineers (bad design and/or bad procedures), Technicians (not following procedures), Manufacturing (crappy products)

Comment: Re:Doubt it would make any difference (Score 1) 416

by MurphyZero (#35051934) Attached to: New Hampshire Bill Could Lead To Adoption of Approval Voting
The correct response is to vote for Z. Serves two purposes: 1) vote of no confidence in the two main parties' candidates and 2) gives confidence to more people to reject the two parties. If third party votes remain limited, people choose to not vote in greater numbers or do the way you do--choose a lesser evil. However, it's in the interest of both evils to continue the system. Yes occasionally they lose, but they win often enough in the system to keep them in a modicum of power. With three of more parties, their power diminishes and *gasp* compromise might be necessary.

Comment: Re:Class Difference (Score 1) 671

by MurphyZero (#34993590) Attached to: The Rise and Rise of the Cognitive Elite
It's amazing how many military officers have history and/or political science degrees. For the most part it does them very well, but they often end up way out of their element in Space Command. Then, it matters how they treat their subordinates, who can save their asses. I think a lot of officers with those degrees realize that they are well-prepared for a career in the military and little else and make the military a career while those with technical degrees have options. Therefore, senior levels have an abundance of history majors.

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

by MurphyZero (#34661464) Attached to: New Molecule Could Lead To Better Rocket Fuel
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

by MurphyZero (#34661300) Attached to: New Molecule Could Lead To Better Rocket Fuel
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

by MurphyZero (#34661264) Attached to: New Molecule Could Lead To Better Rocket Fuel
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

by MurphyZero (#34661188) Attached to: New Molecule Could Lead To Better Rocket Fuel
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..

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Working...