search results matching tag: booster
» channel: weather
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (72) | Sift Talk (1) | Blogs (9) | Comments (134) |
Videos (72) | Sift Talk (1) | Blogs (9) | Comments (134) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
rich_magnet
(Member Profile)
The return was from about twice the altitude of the Blue Origin booster, with a vehicle that's significantly larger and more powerful. I don't have the numbers for the aerodynamic stresses, but I'd be pretty surprised if that was the case.
Here's a comparison of their flight trajectories - http://i.imgur.com/ATkpdAX.png
And here's a comparison of the vehicles - https://i.imgur.com/zrLWBLJ.png
I don't want to take anything away from the ridiculously awesome achievement of Blue Origin, they have the record for first landing of a reusable booster from edge of space and good luck to them.
The booster is not orbital. It's on a ballistic, suborbital flight just as for the Blue Origin booster. The second stage goes to orbit and note that they are not trying to recover that one at all, let alone land it.
In fact, the SpaceX booster does several deceleration burns in space, and so experiences less aerodynamic stress than does the Blue Origin booster, which actually flies faster, according to the article I linked above.
VoodooV
(Member Profile)
At the point of separation, the booster has jettisoned its entire payload and most of its fuel, so the energy required for the return leg should be significantly less than the initial burn.
As far as I know boosters would normally have some fuel left at separation, so the question is really how much more fuel is required for the return than the normal safety margin?
If the answer is "none" then you get your booster back almost for free... any higher amount is a tradeoff of cost of booster vs reduced payload.
Every account I've read suggests that if it can be made to work then it's a large cost saving, but then they said that about the Space Shuttle too.
Can someone edumacate me? I get that the point of this seems to be the achievement of reusable rockets. But the fuel required to slow the rocket and stabilize it for landing seems counterproductive. Or has the cost of rocket fuel compared to the cost of building new rockets made it so that they don't care about the extra rocket fuel they burn now?
SpaceX Lands Stage 1 on Land!
The booster is not orbital. It's on a ballistic, suborbital flight just as for the Blue Origin booster. The second stage goes to orbit and note that they are not trying to recover that one at all, let alone land it.
In fact, the SpaceX booster does several deceleration burns in space, and so experiences less aerodynamic stress than does the Blue Origin booster, which actually flies faster, according to the article I linked above.
It is the first to return from an orbital mission, https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
As impressive as Blue Origin's achievement is, it's only 10% of the energy involved in this one.
SpaceX Lands Stage 1 on Land!
In case nobody caught it, this is not the first time a booster stage returns from space to land on its own power, not the first commercial launch booster landing nor even the first time it happened this year. Blue Origin's New Shepherd recently did just that. This lead to a bit of a war of words on twitter which quickly devolved to a "my rocket is bigger than yours" bragging competition. It's rather humorous therefore to hear this band of professional aerospace PR agents say that this is "history by being the first to fly back and land the first stage of our rocket to land" (@1:20).
Nonetheless an impressive mission and I congratulate their whole team for the accomplishment.
Prague TV Tower Blasts Off Into Space
Needs more boosters...
[edit] and struts...
Ambulance Brake Pedal
Poppet valve problem. Get a new brake booster.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/47836/Vacuum-assisted-power-brake-for-an-automobile
fuzzyundies
(Member Profile)
Your video, Building and firing a solid rocket booster, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
John Oliver Leaves GM Dismembered in Satans Molten Rectum
Actually, this is true, but it's also only one of the recall items that GM has issued Recalls for this year.
"It recalled 8,208 of its 2014 cars on May 7, for example, because they might have rear brakes on the front wheels."
"GM says it has informed regulators about two more recalls imminent but not yet announced. The latest batch includes safety belt, air bag, transmission and electrical issues in a range of midsize sedans, full-size crossovers and SUVs, and pickups."
GM's U.S. recalls this year
Below are General Motors' recall of vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1
Date, no. of U.S. vehicles, models affected, recall defect
- Jan. 13: 324,970 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2014 GMC Sierra for overheated exhaust parts
- Feb. 7 and 25: 1,367,146 of the 2005-07 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-07 Chevrolet HHR, 2005-07 Pontiac G5, 2006-07 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007 Saturn Sky, 2007 Opel GT, 2007 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch
- Feb 20: 355 of the 2014 Buick Enclave, LaCrosse, Regal and Verano; 2014 Chevrolet Cruze, Impala, Malibu and Travers; 2014 GMC Acadia for transmission shift cable adjuster
- March 17: 63,903 of the 2013-14 Cadillac XTS for brake vacuum booster
- March 17: 303,013 of the 2009 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana for airbag
- March 17: 1,178,407 of the 2008-13 Buick Enclave, 2008-13 Chevrolet Traverse, 2008-13 GMC Acadia, 2008-10 Saturn Outlook for airbag
- March 17: 656 of the Cadillac ELR for electronic brake control
- March 28: 823,788 of the 2008-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2008-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2008-10 Pontiac G5, 2008-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2008-10 Saturn Sky, 2008-10 Opel GT, 2008-09 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch
- March 28: 174,046 of the 2013-14 Chevrolet Cruze for front axle shaft
- March 28: 489, 936 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2014 GMC Sierra, 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, 2014 GMC Yukon and Yukon XL for oil cooler fitting.
- March 31: 1,340,447 of the 2004-06 Chevrolet Malibu and Malibu Maxx, 2004-06 Pontiac G6, 2004-07 Saturn Ion, 2008-09 Chevrolet Malibu, 2008-09 Pontiac G6, 2008-09 Saturn Aura, 2010 Cobalt, 2009-10 Chevrolet HHR for electric power steering
- April 9: 2,191,014 of the 2005-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2007-10 Pontiac G5, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007-10 Saturn Sky for ignition key cylinder
- April 24: 50,571 of the 2013 Cadillac SRX for acceleration lag
- April 19: 23,249 of the 2009-10 Pontiac Vibe (built by Toyota) for air bags
- April 24: 51 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2014 GMC Sierra HD for diesel transfer pump
- April 29: 51,640 of the 2014 Chevrolet Traverse, 2014 GMC Acadia and 2014 Buick Enclave for inaccurate fuel gauge
- April 29: 56,214 of the 2007-08 Saturn Aura for shift cable
- May 7: 8,208 of the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu and 2104 Buick Lacrosse for brake rotors
- May 14: 111,889 of the 2005-07 Corvette for headlight low beams
- May 14: 19,225 of the 2014 Cadillac CTS for windshield wipers
- May 14: 140,067 of the 2014 Malibu for brake boost
- May 14: 2,440,524 of the 2004-12 Chevrolet Malibu, 2004-07 Malibu Maxx, 2005-10 Pontiac G6 and 2007-10 Saturn Aura for brake lamps
- May 14: 477 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe for steering tie-rod
- May 16: 1,402 of the 2015 Cadillac Escalade for passenger air bag
- May 19: 1,339,355 of the 2009-10 Saturn Outlook, 2009-14 Chevrolet Traverse, 2009-14 GMC Acadia and 2009-14 Buick Enclave for front seat belts
- May 19: 58 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2015 GMC Sierra HD for loose fuse block
- May 19: 1,075,102 of the 2004-08 Chevrolet Malibu and 2005-08 Pontiac G6 for shift cable (expands April 29 Saturn Aura recall)
Total 18,666,842
( http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/20/gm-recalls-fine-goverment/9329481/ )
For anyone that hasn't followed what this is about...
This affair was actually about 1 specific issue :
The detent in the key socket rotator was not as strong as it should have been.
( --- Sniped ---)
-scheherazade
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate
Very funny. Its always "scientists" who bring that up and who first brought that up. Do you even read those reports? Scientists and their studies (more like very flawed simulations) are always quoted. First they said (Mojib Latif and others) that there wont be any hard winters anymore due to AGW. After it became evident that those utterings were utter bullshit, they said that hard winters will be very often due to AGW (PIK and others) and after we got a normal winter again, they said that this is typical for AGW too (PIK and others again).
If it wasnt for them, this hype wouldnt be nearly where it is.
They just say what is convenient and what fits into their agenda. Its all about money and personal security. Nothing more nothing less, they just think its something different due to their indoctrination. AGW has become a huge self-sustaining (thanks to those corrupt "scientists") economic booster where insurances, scientists, politicians and many many companies (even oil companies - yes, check the global warming lobby) and their lobbies are benefiting from. Its simply not possible to talk about it objectively anymore. And if you try, people like you will come up and defend it like a religion, and prove this fact very quickly. Just look at "bio" fuels. Its a HUGE part of economy already, but it simply isnt eco-friendly at all. Instead people are starving because mono cultures are used instead of different plants for food, so much water is used for producing bio fuels that people have to suffer. The rain forest and others are cleared to be able to put more mono cultures up. Companies like Monsanto are becoming more and more powerful because of it and studies that bio fuels are bad for lots of engines are being censored or simply not funded since even car manufacturers profit from it when engines blow up sooner.
More extreme weather? Bullshit aswell. Thats simply not true, as quite a few (ignored by the "consensus") studies have shown. Its just the reports about even the tiniest things that have bloated up in the globalized and interconnected world of today and untold truths that are fooling you and of course the agendas that need to be kept upright with even the tiniest happenings that fit into it. Next time when you see a report, ask yourself if something like that would have been mentioned globally 20 or 30 years ago.
Take the flood in Pakistan for example. Oh, it was soooo bad and soooo AGW caused, oh the horror, we will all see the same thing and worse in our own countries if we continue to sin in the face of our go-- err scientists!
No, it wasnt. It was as normal as all the very common floods there before. It just wasnt mentioned that since the 70s Pakistans population has tripled and the vast majority of those people have settled down on the fertile lands around the (straightened!!!) rivers.
If that wasnt enough, people like you even completely ignore the fact, even if all their claims were true, that warm periods were ALWAYS much much better for this planet and its inhabitants than cold ones and colder ones than we have right now (we live in an ice age after all) were always bad, if not catastrophic.
And because of that fact I wont be that stupid and waste my time here with more replies, since you guys have made it very obvious already where you are coming from.
Just one little thing to think about for you guys (yeah I still have hope, though its prolly not very realistic), since the rest of my posts will get marginalized by your ignorance anyway:
Just because most scientists are pro-AGW doesnt prove crap. It was always only very few if not only a single scientist who tried to prove many other scientists wrong in their assumptions and most scientists were wrong and very arrogant, especially if they formed something like a society. But like before, there are thankfully still a few of them left who treat science as science and not as their religion or extension of their ego.
I missed this earlier, but I think you'll find that there are almost no climate scientists who will say that for any given weather event "it's climate changes fault".
The media like to bring this up whenever there's a big storm or heatwave, because they know that extreme weather event + AGW "controversy" = ratings. And they go talk to someone (possibly wearing a bow tie) and ask "is climate change causing this?"
At which point, most scientists will respond that while no single incident can be taken as definitive proof, increasing frequency of extreme weather events does fit within the predicted model, and if AGW continues we can expect it to be hotter in summer and also see more storms etc.
OTHER PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. SLOW DOWN!
What annoys me is that this ad is absolutely a blame game.
The guy who pulls out is implicitly portrayed as the victim. He's dressed in "normal" clothes, has his kid with him, and the first words out of his mouth are "mate, I'm sorry". Everything about this ad is designed to illicit sympathy for him.
Look at this guy. Hard working kiwi bloke, cares about his kid (who's even in the right booster seat).
and he's murdered by an arrogant business man who's portrayed as unwilling to prevent the accident.
Finally what's the message of the ad? Not "be careful when pulling out onto a main road", but "slow down".
btw, you can edit your posts if you make a mistake.
I think some of you are missing the point. The ad lays no blame, it just states that mistakes are made and those mistakes can have consequences. The guy with the kid made the mistake of overestimating the time he had to pull out, or maybe made the mistake of proper attention on a road he likely is very, very familiar with. The other guy made the mistake of driving over the speed limit and not being fully aware of what someone else's mistake might be. We've all been both of those drivers at least once. The ad is a cautionary tale, not a "blame game" one.
Lilithia
(Member Profile)
YAYYYYY!
*edit
Yo hey...New-user booster-shot..
http://videosift.com/video/Doctor-Who-Credits-Iron-Man-3-style
Your video, Monkey teaches Human how to Crush Leaves, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Part 1: Obama talks race and Trayvon case
Never ever EVER engage a troll. I can feel the hard-on from here. "Somebody said something to me! Somebody said something to me! I'm a really important person now!"
I knew that.
Well, I got my booster shot of knowledge. That should last me for awhile.
Launching a Model Saturn V Rocket is Triumphant
Found this Choggie: The rocket was fueled by Aluminum Perchlorate, which is also used in fueling the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters.
What kinna propellant ya think? Solid fuel? Estes biggest engine is a "D"....maybe they make an "S."
What It's Like To Read the Game of Thrones Books
@mentality
You can enjoy the series if you like. I'm sure you have your reasons. I merely gave the reasons why I think it's a poorly written series. You can't dispute that, unless you claim I am not allowed to have my own opinions (which from what I can see are supported by many, many ex-George R. R. Martin fans).
I don't, and I am far from alone in my feelings toward the series. Every GoT booster says the same things as you. Problem is, it's a load. I read plenty of atypical fantasy, most of which I really enjoy. I stopped reading GoT when I realized it wasn't fun to read anymore.
Oh, and all the characters you mention either sucked IMO or were inaccessibly stupid, cruel, or annoying.
Pretending that it's good, because it's not enjoyable, is just pretentious by the way.
Which Was The Ugliest 1st Lady in U.S. Presidential History (User Poll by chingalera)
This place is turning into VideoSniff and could use a booster now and then. I bet I know who got the placebos.