THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum

Go Back   PokerTips.org Forums > General Discussion > PokerTips Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 11, 2013, 3:50pm   #21
killcrazy
Apex Predator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 10,307
Reputation: 8118
killcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl View Post
Too much of a pain to keep quoting, so I'm just gonna type out a reply.
i like fisking.

i said fisking. with a k. honestly, some people.

Quote:
What do you all think of legume soups? Lentil, black bean, split pea, etc? I think I've just about perfected my split pea and ham soup. But to make it into a concentrate that's just as good will take some time.
not a big fan of soup. that's probably heinz's fault.

but i do have a food science question for you. someone recently asked me how they can make pasta with seven calories in it. i pondered this and suggested that it was probably made of some kind of pressed sawdust and wallpaper paste composite that the body couldn't digest, but why keep a food scientist and bark yourself.

Quote:
I forgot to mention, another reason for not trying out for the show is that first prize would be like hell to me. Why would I want to run my own restaurant? That's about the worst job there is. Reminds me of a bad joke. First prize is a one week trip to northern Siberia in the winter. Second Prize is a one month trip to northern Siberia in the winter. Can't I just have a million dollars or round trip to the ISS instead?
the good news is, nobody ever actually gets the advertised prize. they either get a shitty line cook job or some money. very few if any of the winners are still in the job they "won".

Quote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but for the laser thing, it would originate from the satellite, but a way to power it would be from the ground. I think just making a nuclear powered satellite network would probably suffice though.
powering things with lasers is trickier than it is in movies. you can't just point a laser at something and impart useful energy to it. so yeah, nuclear powered satellite in orbit is probably going to be better, but better still would be a nuclear powered rocket engine.

Quote:
Referring to gravity assistance, I believe you are pretty much right on. Unless something lines up perfectly, it’s probably much easier to just brute force it. One note though, with non-human exploration, I think it vehicles could be designed for much higher g forces.
well yes. it's much easier to make a g-force resistant box than a g-force resistant human.

Quote:
Maybe a series of 100 g explosions would make more sense to get something to where it needs to be.
mmm. explosions tend to do one of two things, either (i) waste huge amounts of energy or (ii) destroy the thing you're trying to move. so, nuking an asteroid that's about to hit us in the face is a good idea, but a rocket full of very expensive equipment and moderately expensive people...not too sure about that one.

it has been proposed, of course. it was being considered for the Orion program.

Quote:
But then again when your distance is huge, maybe a much steadier .05 g would make more sense. I really don’t know. I just know it’s much easier to move something quick with an explosion than a controlled explosion.
i've always loved the phrase "controlled explosion". i don't think you actually gain that much by having rapid acceleration. more on this in a bit when i start warbling about thrust.

Quote:
I recall reading about a nuclear bomb test in which a big block of heavy metal was put on top of the bomb to see if it could hit escape velocity on earth. With a super highspeed camera, it only managed to get one shot of the block before it was out of view. Based on that, they could determine it was well past escape velocity and most likely burnt up before leaving the atmosphere.
like i said, explosions waste huge amounts of energy and/or destroy the thing you're trying to move.

Quote:
But yeah, as you mentioned with the Apollo astronauts, nothing typically gets past a about 10g. In fact I don’t even think they test past 12g in the centrifuges. If during reentry it gets much past that, the heat shield won’t be able to handle it and it would burn up anyway.
well, the heat shield is there to protect against aerodynamic heating, it's got nothing to do with g-force.

heat dissipation isn't a problem. we know we can get people through the Earth's atmosphere and the only rocky body nearby with a thicker atmosphere has a surface pressure of around 90 times that of Earth and surface temperature of about 750 K...so we probably aren't sending people there, though we've been landing equipment there successfully since the 70s.

Quote:
Yeah, I don’t think Virgin or any other company is going to sell a lot of tickets beyond the initial batch if they can’t even orbit. I’m not sure what the additional fuel requirements are to orbit versus where they are at now.
i'm assuming you mean to reach orbit rather than to orbit? since orbiting is just falling towards the Earth and missing.

Quote:
Even if it’s 3 times the cost, they would sell more than three times the tickets. Just my opinion though.
yeah, i don't see the appeal of the initial missions. float around for a bit and vomit. i've been drunk and it didn't cost me two hundred grand.

Quote:
By the way, there is no way to propel something in space without some sort of propellant, right?
not when you use the word propel. theoretically you could achieve the same result by mechanical means.

Quote:
Intuitively it make sense, but it really cuts down on ways to move things. Sure you can change spinning by shifting the center of mass and whatnot, but I don’t think you can change the overall velocity.
by which i'm assuming you mean speed, since you can change direction by doing things like moving the centre of mass.

Quote:
'Relative Effectiveness' on the wikipedia indicates that Octanitrocubane is the most powerful (currently known to man) chemical explosive. It doesn't mention how that compares to hydrogen/oxygen though.
isnt RE used for demolition though?

Quote:
Interestingly enough octanitrocubane has an RE of 2.38. Compare this to the Tsar Bomba of 2,100,000 which had the Russians used the uranium tamper instead of lead, it would have been about double. So yeah, nuclear fission or fusion is the way to go if it can be controlled.
I think we need to step back here and consider what it is that we are actually trying to achieve. We aren't simply trying to liberate as much energy as possible from a unit mass. if we were, nuclear wins every time. actually matter-antimatter annihilation would win, or throwing stuff into a black hole would win, but neither of those is particularly feasible.

you can't just stick a bunch of duracell batteries in a rocket and say "there, it has power now". your options are either (i) push it from below or (ii) push something out of it to propel it in the opposite direction. if we go with the former, as is the case with (i believe) all proposed forms of explosive propulsion, we're wasting huge amounts of energy and the only kind of bomb that makes any kind of sense for this is a nuke. and then you have a fallout problem. you can't do this on Earth, you can only do it in space, and as we've covered already, moving things in space is orders of magnitude less expensive than getting things into space. intentional nuclear explosions are also illegal.

so we are left with option (i), pushing something out of the rocket. that something has to be an expanding gas, and the question then is which gas, and how to do create and/or heat it. you could go with a series of very small, contained explosions, but how is this going to be any better than a smooth, controlled combustion? while explosives liberate a lot of energy quickly, they are not as efficient as fuels. so maybe we go with one big explosion that gets us off the ground and into space in one go...and probably in many pieces.

the most effective evolution in rocket propulsion could be/should be/will be a nuclear engine. in very basic terms, a nuclear reactor works by generating heat, which is carried away by some kind of coolant which vaporises to drive a turbine. all we need do is replace the turbine with a rocket nozzle and find the most effective coolant to generate thrust. probably, that will be hydrogen.

Kc
__________________
"Blah blah blah KC is right" - Ozone
killcrazy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old Oct 11, 2013, 7:29pm   #22
darryl
Still can't quit day job.
 
darryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: chicago area
Posts: 1,232
Reputation: 1220
darryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud of
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

So you don't like soup because of Heinz? If you're ever in the Chicago area, I'll make you some soup you'll like. Retail soups in general give soup a bad name.

7 calorie pasta. They are most likely using a resistant starch which resists digestion and therefore few calories are absorbed. If I made a starch solution of regular starch and one of a good resistant starch, you probably couldn't tell the difference. In some people they can cause intestinal discomfort, but it's temporary and it's only a small portion of the population. [soapbox]I have a theory that in some people, they will absorb more than 7 calories. Each person has a unique intestinal flora which is capable of breaking down and absorbing different things. So it's entirely possible that some people have critters that are quite good at breaking down these starches into easily absorbable sugars. 20 years from now (hopefully sooner) the food police will start catching on that different people should eat different things for optimal health. Jamming low fat, low sodium food into everyone obviously doesn't work.[/soapbox]

Yes, the heat shield is for dissipating heat, but the more g's the more friction and the more heat. From what I recall reading, coming in at too sharp of an angle would slow down the ship too fast creating too much heat for the heat shield to hold up. The discomfort of the astronauts would be irrelevant as they wouldn't survive.

Yeah, I meant reach an orbit that wouldn’t' decay quickly from the minute amounts of air.

I should have said 'accelerate' not propel. Is it possible to accelerate an object in space without some sort of net loss of mass? Like if I'm tethered to an object, I launch off from it, but assuming I remain tethered, there would be a conservation of momentum and no net change of trajectory??

Your last few paragraphs make a lot of sense; I seem to be moving in all sorts of directions. I think what I'm trying to figure out is the best way to get things off of Earth. Once off Earth options open up, other than having to keep people alive if it's a people mission. So for example, a round trip people mission to Mars as budget friendly as possible with a 99% chance of survival - does it make more sense to have multiple small launches vs. one or two? What sort of rocket makes the most sense? Could nuclear be done cheaper? Could nuclear even provide the initial thrust? Does it make more sense to add weight in order to speed things up in order to subtract weight in the form of life support??

-d
__________________
__________________
AFPP Supporter
Supporting a friendlier pokertips.org since 2008
darryl est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 11:22pm   #23
killcrazy
Apex Predator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 10,307
Reputation: 8118
killcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl View Post
So you don't like soup because of Heinz? If you're ever in the Chicago area, I'll make you some soup you'll like. Retail soups in general give soup a bad name.
well i'm assuming that disgusting tinned filth i had to eat as a kid has something to do with it...i tend not to meet the dress code for fine dining establishments so i've never had soup cooked well.

also soup is just a drink with bits of crud in it.

Quote:
7 calorie pasta.
ta. will pass that along.

Quote:
20 years from now (hopefully sooner) the food police will start catching on that different people should eat different things for optimal health. Jamming low fat, low sodium food into everyone obviously doesn't work.
who are the food police exactly?

i mean, you have dietitians who at least have some kind of scientific training, but you also have nutritionists who don't need anything other than a badge with nutritionist on it. and every year or so one of them will come up with another stupid diet like "eat as much cheese as you like but only cheese and you have to dip it in jam". which leads me to groups like weight watchers who want to sell you their product in perpetuity and who drown out the people saying "ffs, eat less cake and go for a walk occasionally" because those people don't have an exciting colour-coded wall chart and a largely meaningless points system to let you track how well you're doing even though you're still fat and unhealthy after all these years.

Quote:
Yes, the heat shield is for dissipating heat, but the more g's the more friction and the more heat.
i see what you're getting at. surely that's a feature of velocity rather than acceleration though?

Quote:
From what I recall reading, coming in at too sharp of an angle would slow down the ship too fast creating too much heat for the heat shield to hold up. The discomfort of the astronauts would be irrelevant as they wouldn't survive.
sure but if you come in upside down you're fucked too. a screwdriver is bugger all use if you treat it like a hammer.

Quote:
Yeah, I meant reach an orbit that wouldn’t' decay quickly from the minute amounts of air.
yeah. we're talking about the magic orbit where the angular velocity is sufficient to keep us in an orbital freefall. this is probably not what virgin atlantic will mean when they say orbit shortly before asking for money, however.

Quote:
I should have said 'accelerate' not propel. Is it possible to accelerate an object in space without some sort of net loss of mass? Like if I'm tethered to an object, I launch off from it, but assuming I remain tethered, there would be a conservation of momentum and no net change of trajectory??
er. not sure what you're saying with that example?

the answer is either yes or no depending on what you are including in your mass and how you are defining mass.

if we are talking about mass in terms of mass-energy/relativistic mass then things get rather complicated so lets keep it simple and just go with the classical "how much material stuff there is" definition?

so, we are talking about an object that is just on its own in a true vacuum? with nothing external that can push it or pull it or that it can push against or anything like that?

i'm going to go with "no", because i can't think of a way to do it with our current knowledge, but i'll have a bit of a think in case there's something weird that might work.

Quote:
Your last few paragraphs make a lot of sense; I seem to be moving in all sorts of directions. I think what I'm trying to figure out is the best way to get things off of Earth.
and until we have a space elevator, or figure out how to do something really clever with magnets (you can usually do something really clever with magnets), the best way is probably the way korolyov did it.

Quote:
Once off Earth options open up, other than having to keep people alive if it's a people mission. So for example, a round trip people mission to Mars as budget friendly as possible with a 99% chance of survival - does it make more sense to have multiple small launches vs. one or two?
what would be the purpose of the second launch?

also, if i haven't said this, sending people off to Mars or wherever is pretty pointless scientifically speaking, and i'd rather we spent that space and weight on little robots. sending people might spark public interest and thereby funding is the only argument in its favour at present.

Quote:
What sort of rocket makes the most sense?
uhm...a big one

Quote:
Could nuclear be done cheaper?
probably yes, and nuclear is more efficient in terms of thrust per unit fuel, so can support a larger rocket.

Quote:
Could nuclear even provide the initial thrust?
oh yes.

Quote:
Does it make more sense to add weight in order to speed things up in order to subtract weight in the form of life support??
off the top of my head, i couldn't tell you...you'd be amazed how fucking complicated the maths is for this kind of thing and i'm not paid enough to try and work it out. i'm guessing the answer is going to be no, because so much of the fuel/weight is being burnt getting into space, and it's not going to be a point the launchpad at Mars and go go go affair, it will be a get into orbit then launch for Mars, possibly via somewhere else for the gravitational assist...Cassini went past Venus twice before heading for Saturn.

Kc
__________________
"Blah blah blah KC is right" - Ozone
killcrazy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2013, 4:58am   #24
darryl
Still can't quit day job.
 
darryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: chicago area
Posts: 1,232
Reputation: 1220
darryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud of
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killcrazy View Post
well i'm assuming that disgusting tinned filth i had to eat as a kid has something to do with it...i tend not to meet the dress code for fine dining establishments so i've never had soup cooked well.

also soup is just a drink with bits of crud in it.
Crud if it's bad soup. PM me your address and I will try to get you a decent water add only corn chowder. I'm not sure if there are any import/export issues with sending food to the UK from the states though. I don't deal with that end of the business.

Quote:
who are the food police exactly?
Food police are like those wackos from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. They were the ones who were saying how bad tropical oils were for you in popcorn because studies were done with partially hydrogenated tropical oils that said they were bad for you. So because of pressure from the food police, food manufacturers switched to partially hydrogenated soybean oil instead of palm oil because they weren't tropical oils. Then years later they pressured everyone to get rid of PHO's and switching back to tropical oils conveniently forgetting they were the ones who started that in the first place. Now they are pressuring everyone to cut the sodium out of food despite the fact that for the vast majority of people sodium doesn't affect blood pressure. They would be much better if they could actually understand good scientific studies and base their nagging on that.

Quote:
i mean, you have dietitians who at least have some kind of scientific training, but you also have nutritionists who don't need anything other than a badge with nutritionist on it. and every year or so one of them will come up with another stupid diet like "eat as much cheese as you like but only cheese and you have to dip it in jam". which leads me to groups like weight watchers who want to sell you their product in perpetuity and who drown out the people saying "ffs, eat less cake and go for a walk occasionally" because those people don't have an exciting colour-coded wall chart and a largely meaningless points system to let you track how well you're doing even though you're still fat and unhealthy after all these years.
Right on. There are no short cuts. IMHO, eat more vegetables and fruits, exercise more and cut out sweets the rest will fall in place. I've personally noticed that I stay full longer eating this way. Oddly enough though, I have a much easier time running long distances shortly after eating a greasy cheeseburger than a bowl of spaghetti.

Quote:
i see what you're getting at. surely that's a feature of velocity rather than acceleration though?
It's probably a bit of both. Friction is what creates the heat. The quicker it slows down, the more friction and heat. But then again, the higher the velocity, the more friction in the first place.
Quote:
sure but if you come in upside down you're fucked too. a screwdriver is bugger all use if you treat it like a hammer.
Fortunately by design, it won't come in upside down just based on aerodynamics.

Quote:
yeah. we're talking about the magic orbit where the angular velocity is sufficient to keep us in an orbital freefall. this is probably not what virgin atlantic will mean when they say orbit shortly before asking for money, however.
That's the magic orbit I'm talking about.

Quote:
if we are talking about mass in terms of mass-energy/relativistic mass then things get rather complicated so lets keep it simple and just go with the classical "how much material stuff there is" definition?

so, we are talking about an object that is just on its own in a true vacuum? with nothing external that can push it or pull it or that it can push against or anything like that?

i'm going to go with "no", because i can't think of a way to do it with our current knowledge, but i'll have a bit of a think in case there's something weird that might work.
Yeah, I'm talking about an object in it's own true vacuum. No external forces. Can it change it's velocity? My guess is no as well unless it expels some sort of mass. So that limits all space travel to require a propellent in order to change it's trajectory.

Quote:
and until we have a space elevator, or figure out how to do something really clever with magnets (you can usually do something really clever with magnets), the best way is probably the way korolyov did it.
Yeah, magnets do cool things. Take a copper tube and drop a neodymium magnet down it and see what it does...

Quote:
what would be the purpose of the second launch?
Second launch is just if they can't get everything needed in one launch. Apollo missions very cleverly got around requiring more than one launch by keeping the command and service module around lunar orbit and sending only the relatively light weight lunar module down - saving lots of additional weight. Even still they were about 3,000,000kg launch weight. Who knows what a single launch weight would be on a mars mission. That and I recall reading about how NASA would want to send an additional unmanned ship over just as a back up in case the one they went with fails.

Quote:
also, if i haven't said this, sending people off to Mars or wherever is pretty pointless scientifically speaking, and i'd rather we spent that space and weight on little robots. sending people might spark public interest and thereby funding is the only argument in its favour at present.
I somewhat agree. A sample return mission would certainly be cheaper and offer about as much knowledge. Robots are getting better and better. Extremely long term we will have to figure this out as eventually the Earth will be swallowed by the sun, but that's well after I'm long gone. I think the biggest benefits of a people Martian mission would be just in the technology involved. Like a result of the Apollo missions were fuel cells, computers, improved telemetry and radar, etc.

Quote:
probably yes, and nuclear is more efficient in terms of thrust per unit fuel, so can support a larger rocket.
without people, no big deal. With people, you've got tons and tons of shielding and probably many other additional safety factors to build in.

Quote:
Quote:
Could nuclear even provide the initial thrust?
oh yes.
I just don't know enough about current reactors. I know they take some time to get going, then shutting them down takes a while. So it could be something like where it takes a few hours (or maybe even days) to build up enough power. I suppose that's what control rods are for though.

Quote:
Quote:
Does it make more sense to add weight in order to speed things up in order to subtract weight in the form of life support??
off the top of my head, i couldn't tell you...you'd be amazed how fucking complicated the maths is for this kind of thing and i'm not paid enough to try and work it out. i'm guessing the answer is going to be no, because so much of the fuel/weight is being burnt getting into space, and it's not going to be a point the launchpad at Mars and go go go affair, it will be a get into orbit then launch for Mars, possibly via somewhere else for the gravitational assist...Cassini went past Venus twice before heading for Saturn.

Kc
yeah the math is pretty intense. Fortunately now we have machines that can do the math quick, it's just a matter of telling the machines the correct things to do. Back in the day, they did some pretty good estimates with what they had. But as you said, leave this up to the experts. I'm sure they've worked the problem through from all sorts of different scenarios that we haven't even thought of.

-d
__________________
__________________
AFPP Supporter
Supporting a friendlier pokertips.org since 2008
darryl est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2013, 4:49pm   #25
killcrazy
Apex Predator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 10,307
Reputation: 8118
killcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl View Post
Crud if it's bad soup. PM me your address and I will try to get you a decent water add only corn chowder. I'm not sure if there are any import/export issues with sending food to the UK from the states though. I don't deal with that end of the business.
good question...people do send junk food back and forth though?

anyway. that sounds vaguely healthy and I can't think of a way to deep fry soup to fix it.

Quote:
Food police are like those wackos from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. They were the ones who were saying how bad tropical oils were for you in popcorn because studies were done with partially hydrogenated tropical oils that said they were bad for you. So because of pressure from the food police, food manufacturers switched to partially hydrogenated soybean oil instead of palm oil because they weren't tropical oils. Then years later they pressured everyone to get rid of PHO's and switching back to tropical oils conveniently forgetting they were the ones who started that in the first place. Now they are pressuring everyone to cut the sodium out of food despite the fact that for the vast majority of people sodium doesn't affect blood pressure. They would be much better if they could actually understand good scientific studies and base their nagging on that.
i see. i don't think we have anything like that, or at least not that organised. if we did they'd be immediately branded poofters and ignored...every now and again the news has nothing better to talk about so they warble on about polyunsaturates until it's time for the football scores, but that's about it.

Quote:
Right on. There are no short cuts. IMHO, eat more vegetables and fruits, exercise more and cut out sweets the rest will fall in place.
the thing that bugs me the most about all these diet schemes is they have some kind of treat system where you can have a small bar of chocolate or somesuch every few days. this is the crux of the con. nobody would say to a heroin addict "well you've been good for a week now so you can have a little bit of skag if you want", but apparently this is appropriate if you're addicted to sugar. stop eating the cakes, and after a few months your body will stop expressing interest in them.

Quote:
I've personally noticed that I stay full longer eating this way. Oddly enough though, I have a much easier time running long distances shortly after eating a greasy cheeseburger than a bowl of spaghetti.
how soon after? because food stays in the stomach for about 2 hours, so you aren't actually absorbing anything from it for a couple of hours.

presumably there is going to be some process whereby the body recognises that there is/is not food in the stomach and will release energy from its stores on that basis, but i'd be surprised if the kind of food you eat would have much effect on that.

Quote:
Quote:
i see what you're getting at. surely that's a feature of velocity rather than acceleration though?
It's probably a bit of both. Friction is what creates the heat. The quicker it slows down, the more friction and heat. But then again, the higher the velocity, the more friction in the first place.
yeah but it's the friction that causes the deceleration is the point. it's the velocity that you have on entering the atmosphere, not the rate of change in that velocity, that determines the...whatever it was...*scrolls*...oh yes. so you could fairly say "the greater the friction the higher the G-force", but saying it the other way round is a bit chewy. there's an unstated but rather significant causal relationship.

Quote:
Fortunately by design, it won't come in upside down just based on aerodynamics.
exactly. and in a more general sense, we don't need to worry about this because we've got it well sussed at this point.

Quote:
Yeah, I'm talking about an object in it's own true vacuum.
there's a cute paradoxical shenanigan to play with here. any time anyone asks about "what if x was in a vacuum" you can go "aha, but if x was there it wouldn't be a vacuum because it would have x in it! aha!". what normal people mean when they say vacuum doesn't exist in nature. anyway, moving on.

Quote:
No external forces. Can it change it's velocity? My guess is no as well unless it expels some sort of mass. So that limits all space travel to require a propellent in order to change it's trajectory.
doesn't need to be a propellant. propellants are chemical. you can use radiation pressure...fucking around with space/gravity might also work...and there's always magnets.

Quote:
Yeah, magnets do cool things. Take a copper tube and drop a neodymium magnet down it and see what it does...
see, magnets are ace.

Quote:
Second launch is just if they can't get everything needed in one launch. Apollo missions very cleverly got around requiring more than one launch by keeping the command and service module around lunar orbit and sending only the relatively light weight lunar module down - saving lots of additional weight.
well yes, one kind of assumes we would be doing the same thing with Mars. though we should note that Martian surface gravity is about 2.25x that of the Moon (37% that of Earth) so getting back from the surface of Mars is going to require substantially more oomph (technical term).

Quote:
Even still they were about 3,000,000kg launch weight. Who knows what a single launch weight would be on a mars mission. That and I recall reading about how NASA would want to send an additional unmanned ship over just as a back up in case the one they went with fails.
got a link to that article? it smells weird. i can't see NASA blowing hundreds of billions of dollars like that.

i won't speculate about the necessary payload, except to observe that we're now using rockets an order of magnitude smaller than the Saturn V. we will have to build something new and sexy...we were building something that might fit the bill but it got scraped because nobody could think of a reason for such a huge payload.

Quote:
I somewhat agree. A sample return mission would certainly be cheaper and offer about as much knowledge.
what do we actually gain by dumping some people there?

"yep. looks red to me. see you guys in 9 months."

Quote:
Robots are getting better and better. Extremely long term we will have to figure this out as eventually the Earth will be swallowed by the sun, but that's well after I'm long gone.
i wouldn't worry about it. granted the Sun will become a red giant in about 6 billion years, at which point we've probably got about a billion years before we get swallowed, but the Earth will be rendered totally uninhabitable long before that happens as increase in Solar temperatures cause all our water to evaporate into space in about 1 billion years.

but you don't need to worry about that either, because in about 500-600 million years Solar radiation will have increased to the point that the CO2 level in the atmosphere will have dropped beyond the point that photosynthesis is possible, resulting in the extinction of all plant and with it animal life.

incidentally we won't be swallowed per se; the Sun will expand to approximately where the Earth orbits, but because it's losing mass along the way, the planets will all have drifted outwards by about 25%. tidal forces will then push us further out, and eventually suck us into the Sun.

and, of course, being on Mars is going to be worth precisely fuck all when this happens.

Quote:
I think the biggest benefits of a people Martian mission would be just in the technology involved. Like a result of the Apollo missions were fuel cells, computers, improved telemetry and radar, etc.
this is kind of a myth. we didn't develop all this technology because we were sending people to the Moon, we developed all this technology because billions of dollars was being poured into R&D. so if we are going to spend all this money on R&D, wouldn't you rather we spent it on directly developing technologies that improve our life on this planet rather than send a couple of guys to another planet to confirm that it's red and maybe getting a better toaster out of it?


Quote:
Quote:
probably yes, and nuclear is more efficient in terms of thrust per unit fuel, so can support a larger rocket.
without people, no big deal. With people, you've got tons and tons of shielding and probably many other additional safety factors to build in.
it's really not a problem. no more so than it would be in oh, lets say, a nuclear submarine.

and lets think about how much of the total weight "tonnes and tonnes" is, when you're dealing with a three thousand tonne rocket.

it's the risk of catastrophic failure that's stopping us from doing this. especially when you consider that NASA are involved.

Kc
__________________
"Blah blah blah KC is right" - Ozone
killcrazy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 4:54am   #26
darryl
Still can't quit day job.
 
darryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: chicago area
Posts: 1,232
Reputation: 1220
darryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud of
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killcrazy View Post
good question...people do send junk food back and forth though?

anyway. that sounds vaguely healthy and I can't think of a way to deep fry soup to fix it.
Yeah, people do send food back and forth. Most likely I would just say it's business samples and not mention food or anything on the customs forms. Vaguely healthy is probably a good description. The first ingredient is coconut oil, which depending on which school of thought you belong to is either a health food supplement or artery clogging. It's in there as part of a creamer powder. Dried milk and cream just don't work quite as well. Corn is probably pretty low on the list, but that's because it's freeze dried and has an extremely low density. When it’s cooked up, it should look just like corn chowder.

Quote:
i see. i don't think we have anything like that, or at least not that organised. if we did they'd be immediately branded poofters and ignored...every now and again the news has nothing better to talk about so they warble on about polyunsaturates until it's time for the football scores, but that's about it.
I think you do to some extent. You’ve got Jamie Oliver. That guy severely damaged the ground beef industry - at least in the states. He poured laundry detergent on ground beef and claimed that’s what people are eating. Of course he failed to mention that people aren’t really eating laundry detergent in their ground beef. In actuality the micro counts were reduced by a puff of ammonia gas which has been used for years to make food safer. Anyway, because of that ordeal many restaurants stopped using lean finely textured beef. I think only one big restaurant stood up and said something like, ‘we will continue to use this beef because it falls in line with our sustainability initiative. We can’t in good conscience let 15 lbs of beef per cow go to waste because of some activist.’

Quote:
how soon after? because food stays in the stomach for about 2 hours, so you aren't actually absorbing anything from it for a couple of hours.

presumably there is going to be some process whereby the body recognises that there is/is not food in the stomach and will release energy from its stores on that basis, but i'd be surprised if the kind of food you eat would have much effect on that.
I have run 20K both immediately after eating a big mac and fries and a couple of hours after without much trouble. I’ve had big bowls of spaghetti and run both immediately after and after a couple of hours and I struggle. Granted my sample size is small and there were probably many other factors involved.

Quote:
doesn't need to be a propellant. propellants are chemical. you can use radiation pressure...fucking around with space/gravity might also work...and there's always magnets.
Okay, those ways I suppose work, I guess I should have rephrased the question.. Now, how much, in all practicality, could radiation pressure or magnets change velocity on a spacecraft? I’m not being sarcastic, I honestly want to know. The problem with magnets is you would need another magnet in the vicinity. I don’t know enough about radiation pressure.

Quote:
well yes, one kind of assumes we would be doing the same thing with Mars. though we should note that Martian surface gravity is about 2.25x that of the Moon (37% that of Earth) so getting back from the surface of Mars is going to require substantially more oomph (technical term).
It certainly will. Fortunately because of the atmosphere, even weak as it is, it won’t take nearly any fuel to land compared to the moon.

Quote:
Quote:
I recall reading about how NASA would want to send an additional unmanned ship over just as a back up in case the one they went with fails.
got a link to that article? it smells weird. i can't see NASA blowing hundreds of billions of dollars like that.
I think I was reading about the new space launch system and the new orion space craft on the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
It’s probably buried within a link there. Now that I think about it though, it was probably just one of the many proposals. NASA tends to blow money, so I wouldn’t put it past them.


Quote:
i won't speculate about the necessary payload, except to observe that we're now using rockets an order of magnitude smaller than the Saturn V. we will have to build something new and sexy...we were building something that might fit the bill but it got scraped because nobody could think of a reason for such a huge payload.
I got to see a Saturn V when I was in Texas a couple months ago, It is unfrigginbelievable the size of that thing. It makes all other rockets look like small potatoes. While at the Johnson space center though, they had some small scale mock ups of the new SLS and Orion Spacecraft that will supposedly take us to Mars in the future.

Quote:
Quote:
I think the biggest benefits of a people Martian mission would be just in the technology involved. Like a result of the Apollo missions were fuel cells, computers, improved telemetry and radar, etc.
this is kind of a myth. we didn't develop all this technology because we were sending people to the Moon, we developed all this technology because billions of dollars was being poured into R&D. so if we are going to spend all this money on R&D, wouldn't you rather we spent it on directly developing technologies that improve our life on this planet rather than send a couple of guys to another planet to confirm that it's red and maybe getting a better toaster out of it?
I see your point, but at the same time, there could be some unexpected technology the comes out of it in ways which we didn’t expect. That said though, dumping money directly into developing technology does make more sense.

Quote:
it's really not a problem. no more so than it would be in oh, lets say, a nuclear submarine.

and lets think about how much of the total weight "tonnes and tonnes" is, when you're dealing with a three thousand tonne rocket.

it's the risk of catastrophic failure that's stopping us from doing this. especially when you consider that NASA are involved.

Kc
So I think the hold back on nuclear then is just that we’ve already got chemical rockets that work and to develop nuclear rockets that are deemed safe from catastrophic failure would cost a lot more than making bigger chemical rockets. Until we’ve reached the limit on what chemical rockets can do, there won’t be a need for nuclear. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Anyway, I’m just waiting until space tourism gets cheaper. I think it would be pretty cool to see the Earthrise in person.

-d
__________________
__________________
AFPP Supporter
Supporting a friendlier pokertips.org since 2008
darryl est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 5:27pm   #27
feudallord
Doyle Look-alike
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 321
Reputation: 95
feudallord will become famous soon enough
Default

Haha you'll never change dude, gota love the topic changes
feudallord est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 6:45pm   #28
darryl
Still can't quit day job.
 
darryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: chicago area
Posts: 1,232
Reputation: 1220
darryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud ofdarryl has much to be proud of
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Unfortunately without topic changes, there would be just about no posts here


-d
__________________
__________________
AFPP Supporter
Supporting a friendlier pokertips.org since 2008
darryl est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 3:35pm   #29
balthazarr
zahltinbar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,163
Reputation: 4151
balthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond reputebalthazarr has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killcrazy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by balthazarr View Post
I feel like this whole space travel thing is not really going anywhere. Thats why I think we should work with what's closest to us: the moon. Just bomb some chemicals up there, sprinkle some water over it and -BOOM- atmosphere.
the Moon lacks the mass to hold an atmosphere and the magnetic field to protect it from the Solar wind.
oh, my disguise fell off quickly. now how am I going to scam you guys into my kickstarter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by killcrazy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by balthazarr View Post
And I prefer minestrone to a gazpacho or borscht although I sometimes make my own version of borscht with potatoes and sausages which has nothing in common with borscht but I call it borscht anyway because borscht.
you could call it wurscht?

Kc
there are too many things in my life I call wurscht already.
balthazarr est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2013, 3:08pm   #30
killcrazy
Apex Predator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 10,307
Reputation: 8118
killcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl View Post
Quote:
i see. i don't think we have anything like that, or at least not that organised. if we did they'd be immediately branded poofters and ignored...
I think you do to some extent. You’ve got Jamie Oliver.
who was immediately branded a poofter and ignored.

he went on a crusade to improve school dinners a few years ago and took over the kitchens of some school in the south. it ended with parents rebelling and posting junk from the local takeaway through the school fence to their kids.

so yeah, we have food nazis, but fortunately the british people don't take kindly to sanctimonious twats with affected cockney accents.

Quote:
That guy severely damaged the ground beef industry - at least in the states. He poured laundry detergent on ground beef and claimed that’s what people are eating.
yeah that sounds like him. he's not the brightest of folk

Quote:
Of course he failed to mention that people aren’t really eating laundry detergent in their ground beef. In actuality the micro counts were reduced by a puff of ammonia gas which has been used for years to make food safer. Anyway, because of that ordeal many restaurants stopped using lean finely textured beef. I think only one big restaurant stood up and said something like, ‘we will continue to use this beef because it falls in line with our sustainability initiative. We can’t in good conscience let 15 lbs of beef per cow go to waste because of some activist.’
meh, it's just that old thing of how people like to eat it but don't want to see it being made. we've been mechanically recovering meat for decades, no biggie.

if the FDA say it's okay, then it's probably okay. that's kinda what they're there for. having said that, we had E number hysteria for a while. E numbers are the European Food Safety Authority (which is an important body because its official name isn't in fucking French) codes for food additives that have been found safe for consumption and officially approved. back in the 80s people who read women's magazines got it into their head that E numbers all gave you cancer. these are the same people who still think the MMR vaccine gives you autism. but again, we marginalise these people and ignore them rather than putting them on television for 23 hours a day where they can scream at each other about baby daddies and call each other names. a substantial percentage of both our populations would be better used as fertiliser, the only real difference is how we treat them. kudos to the germans for actually using them as fertiliser.

Quote:
Quote:
doesn't need to be a propellant. propellants are chemical. you can use radiation pressure...fucking around with space/gravity might also work...and there's always magnets.
Okay, those ways I suppose work, I guess I should have rephrased the question.. Now, how much, in all practicality, could radiation pressure or magnets change velocity on a spacecraft? I’m not being sarcastic, I honestly want to know. The problem with magnets is you would need another magnet in the vicinity. I don’t know enough about radiation pressure.
i'm not talking about some kind of troll physics dangling a magnet on a fishing line kind of set up, i'm just acknowledging the incredible amount of energy that can be stored in a magnetic field.

radiation pressure is just smashing photons into matter to give it a wee bit of a nudge. doesn't sound like much, but it does provide most of the outward force resisting gravitational collapse in higher mass stars and is therefore cool. solar sails make use of radiation pressure, and i have seen papers that suggest velocities of >0.01c are possible using solar sails. this would be an opportunity for you and your lasers, incidentally.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I recall reading about how NASA would want to send an additional unmanned ship over just as a back up in case the one they went with fails.
got a link to that article? it smells weird. i can't see NASA blowing hundreds of billions of dollars like that.
I think I was reading about the new space launch system and the new orion space craft on the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
It’s probably buried within a link there. Now that I think about it though, it was probably just one of the many proposals. NASA tends to blow money, so I wouldn’t put it past them.
if we go to Mars I want the Russians in charge. they are so much better at space than America it isn't even funny.

Quote:
Quote:
i won't speculate about the necessary payload, except to observe that we're now using rockets an order of magnitude smaller than the Saturn V. we will have to build something new and sexy...we were building something that might fit the bill but it got scraped because nobody could think of a reason for such a huge payload.
I got to see a Saturn V when I was in Texas a couple months ago, It is unfrigginbelievable the size of that thing.
aw and you didn't bring me back a piece?

Quote:
It makes all other rockets look like small potatoes. While at the Johnson space center though, they had some small scale mock ups of the new SLS and Orion Spacecraft that will supposedly take us to Mars in the future.
i was surprised to learn that the SLS isn't going to be able to carry much more than the Saturn V. one might ask, why not just use a Saturn V? and then one would be hurried off into a side room and come back an hour later with a vacant expression mumbling about how much one enjoys one's work.

Quote:
Quote:
this is kind of a myth. we didn't develop all this technology because we were sending people to the Moon, we developed all this technology because billions of dollars was being poured into R&D. so if we are going to spend all this money on R&D, wouldn't you rather we spent it on directly developing technologies that improve our life on this planet rather than send a couple of guys to another planet to confirm that it's red and maybe getting a better toaster out of it?
I see your point, but at the same time, there could be some unexpected technology the comes out of it in ways which we didn’t expect.
isn't this just as true if you're looking to make, for instance, a more efficient solar powered car?

Quote:
So I think the hold back on nuclear then is just that we’ve already got chemical rockets that work and to develop nuclear rockets that are deemed safe from catastrophic failure would cost a lot more than making bigger chemical rockets. Until we’ve reached the limit on what chemical rockets can do, there won’t be a need for nuclear. Necessity is the mother of invention.
it's not about them being deemed safe per se, just that the consequences of catastrophic failure would genuinely be a catastrophe, and regardless of how good your engineering is, things will break.

Quote:
Anyway, I’m just waiting until space tourism gets cheaper. I think it would be pretty cool to see the Earthrise in person.
i'm going to wait until we have transporters and beam directly to the ISS. i've been on virgin trains, and they doesn't inspire confidence in virgin's ability to construct space ships.

Kc
__________________
"Blah blah blah KC is right" - Ozone
killcrazy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 9:11pm. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.