The idea is that eventaully we will want a station in Geo synchronous orbit and that its cheaper to move this station from LEO to GSO than luanching parts up from earth. Not sure if this is true though.
Definitely not true... The amount of fuel required to move the ISS to GSO from LEO (26,000ish miles versus the 100-1200 miles it currently sits at) would be staggering. Keep in mind that it is a million pound object. At launch, the shuttle weighs almost 4.4 million pounds, but only weighs around 200,000 pounds in orbit. At best (really stretching it here), it would require 20 million pounds of fuel to move the ISS just a fraction of the 25,000 miles it needs to go in space using the same payload ratio as the shuttle. And you have to find a way to get that 20 million pounds of fuel into space. If the space shuttle were to complete this task, at 53,000 pounds of fuel (max payload shuttle can take), it would require 377 shuttle launches to get the fuel there. Each one of those shuttle launches would require 4 million pounds of fuel to get into LEO. Thats 1500 million pounds of fuel.
Really? I thought they attached a VASMIR ion engine onto the ISS for orbital correction maneuvers. Attach a few more, load up some fuel and go. You know, explosions not withstanding.
Orbital correction maneuvers are nothing compared to the delta v required to transfer the ISS into an orbit far enough away from earth to not cause problems. The VASMIR engines are really only good for high specific impulse any way (very efficient but with low thrust levels). The reason those are the orbital correction motors is for this reason, it requires much less fuel weight and the manuevers require relatively low thrust. Also, adding more engines is only going to add more weight, which will require more fuel, which will be more weight... so then you will need more engines, then more fuel for those engines... this gets out of control very quickly. Believe it or not, there is a reason they brought the space station into space in pieces and assembled it there. There isn't realistically enough propulsion to move an object that large more than a few kilometers at a time.
How can replacing thousands of expensive centrifuges be cheaper than replacing the infected computers??!! Dude, WTF?!
Because the worm was designed to destroy the centrifuges. The worm fed signals to the centrifuges that made them operate beyond their operating capabilities, effectively destroying them
Not so much an "ocean"; the water is in the form of vapor, not liquid. It doesn't even look like a cloud, which is condensed water droplets. The density is most likely lower than the best vacuum we've ever pulled on earth. It's a lot of water, but a LOT of space.
So it's not really a large source of water, but rather a large gathering of water...?
with unreliable history of that death trap, might be the last shuttle to burn up, the last crew to die
2 Failures out of 135 launches makes it an unreliable death trap?
More seriously, when did they find the second and third moons? I honestly don't remember ever hearing about them, last I knew Pluto just had Charon.
2005, Hubble found them.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.