Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: meh (Score 1) 353

but what are the chances of finding a good vintage of scotch to go with all of this breaded goodness they are going to be having up there?

Alcohol is definitely going to space. Ballantine's zero-gravity glass is made in cooperation with something called the Open Space Agency, which also has a design for an automated Dobsonian telescope. Ardbeg is going to space. And a vacuum still is an old science-fiction trope.

Comment Re:The problem with privitization? Or just no shit (Score 2) 353

Was the first Arctic traversal a government mission?
How about the first summit of Mount Everest?
How about the first flight?

Nope.

Either private enterprise or not-for-profit groups.

Government does little in the way of firsts as they are bound by health and safety laws and sending people on fact-gathering missions is generally a waste of money. Technically the moon missions would come under military, even then, wouldn't they?

Don't wait for your government to be the first to cross the Atlantic or swim the English Channel. It ain't going to happen.

To quote XKCD: "For Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane."

Comment A fair point (Score 2) 353

Maybe he/she doesn't like people who make outrageous claims they can't back up. While I have no ax to grind on this particular claim, I can understand being irritated by these kinds of people.

Okay, that's fair.

But if someone is irritated by that sort of behaviour, it would seem (to me) to be more effective to attack the claims, instead of other things. And misrepresenting seems a bit dishonest, and ultimately ineffective.

Is it *really* that obvious that someone could
a) be irritated by Musk,
b) be driven by irritation to attack other things Musk does, and
c) be dishonest enough to misrepresent?

I agree that it could be a reason, but it's a stretch.

Is this motivation/behaviour really that obvious to people?

Comment Re:Everybody should be prepared to die. (Score 3, Funny) 353

Out of several tens of billions of humans, only a fraction have not yet died, and of those who died, only a small percent of disputed cases indicate recovery.

On the contrary, I have never died before and rumors that I would do so are spread by fact-checkers of the liberal press and corrupt global warming scientists.

Comment Some Artistic License (Score 1) 353

I like the part in the SpaceX video where the rocket lands, and the door opens on magnificent desolation. This is artistic license. Obviously the material for a habitat would precede the arrival of people.

But yes, a first-try planetary colony won't necessarily work. Getting there is dangerous, and once you're there being able to continue to provide the population with air, water, food, shelter, and energy is going to have significant risks of lethal failures.

Comment Inscrutable behaviour (Score 2) 353

Someone please take the Kool Aid away from this guy. His rocket just blew up recently and was asking for help in figuring out why...

He was asking for evidence (recorded videos, audios, security camera footage), not help.

At this point I'm really wondering why people like you post this sort of thing. I mean, it's not like you have any insight into the situation.

It very much appears that you have an agenda (or an axe to grind), and chose to misrepresent the situation because you think it will add incrementally to whatever goals you have.

What are your goals? How does it benefit *you* to misrepresent what Musk is doing?

I'm constantly surprised by what motivates other people. As in - can never figure out why people do what they do.

(Maybe you shorted some SpaceX stock? No, SpaceX is still a privately held company. Maybe you work at NASA and don't like being shown up? Maybe you work at a competing launch company? Your behaviour is inscrutable.)

Comment Re:The answer (Score 1) 110

Where's that "So you think you have a way to block spam?" fill-out-form joke?

A website, or a game server, is EXACTLY the kind of machine that receives a significant portion of its requests from people it's never seen before.

On top of that, a DDoS doesn't care if you "block" it. It's still consumed 1Tb of traffic. Even if every single packet never reaches the server, the DDoS will knock you offline by swamping your connection.

You can "firewall" it right at the first point that your connection comes in. It still consumes your connection.

You have to ask your upstream to block it - who have EXACTLY the same problem. They block it, but it still consumes Terabytes of otherwise-usable bandwidth to do so.

I'm afraid your suggestion would tick almost every one of the the "Will not work because" boxes.

Comment Re:The Refueling Tanker makes no sense (Score 1, Insightful) 195

Sure, you can do it, but if you rely on your rocket engines entirely to decelerate (as the video clearly shows), you would need roughly double the fuel.

Agreed, but the real question is what are they replacing the expended fuel with? I mean, so that the landing mass is roughly the same as the launch mass. Because that's the only way you would need roughly double the fuel.

On a more serious note, they've already been landing boosters this way. In Earth gravity. Furthermore, how the fuck are your parachutes going to help land on a planet with little-to-no atmosphere?

You play KSP, so it's totally reasonable to expect that you know better than an entire company full of rocket scientists.

Slashdot Top Deals

A budget is just a method of worrying before you spend money, as well as afterward.

Working...