9,049 karma · joined April 1, 2009
echo fua@tmrrv.bnl | tr '[a-y]' '[b-z]'
"Simply, the energy density would be doubled. So same energy, same volume base, kind of half [the weight]," Aoyama said.
Sturgeon's law is understated. 99.987% of anything in an iframe is crap.
Hey NoScript peeps, (or other users without Javascript), I dig the way you roll. That's why this page is mostly static and doesn't generate the list dynamically. The only things you're missing are a progressive descent into darkness and a happy face who gets sicker and sicker as you go on. Oh, and there's a total at the bottom, but anyone who uses NoScript can surely count for themselves.
Rock on!
Love it!
That's Project Zero: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/
To the two parts to your question:
a) Yes.
b) No. Your example of the weird English in the manual is witness to the fact that Philips does not care at all about the product, only the licensing fees they collect.
tl;dr: The landing site was changed late in the mission planning sequence (after the Critical Design Review). As a result of the landing site change, the lander went over a crater which caused the distance to the surface to change significantly. This was detected by the laser altimeter, but the altimeter reading was discarded because of the rapid change (assumed to have failed).
As a result, "the lander was still about five kilometers above the surface when the lander’s computer believed it was on the surface. The lander continued to descend at a slow rate of about one meter per second under its thrusters until it exhausted its propellant. The lander then went into freefall, crashing into the surface at a speed of more than 100 meters per second."
Ref: https://headedforspace.com/why-and-how-rocket-fuel-tanks-are...
The rocket tumbled for four complete revolutions. Most rockets will be destroyed by inertial and aerodynamic forces well before the first revolution (they are designed to withstand forces along the major axis, not significant side forces).
It was helpful from an aerodynamic force POV that the rocket was well over 100,000 feet before it started to tumble. Still, the inertial forces when the full stack started rotating must have been huge.
T+00:16 - Shortly after liftoff, when the engine graphic first appears, three engines were out. https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2721
T+00:28 - Sparks are seen in the engine exhaust and some flashes. https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2733
T+00:40 - A fourth engine is marked out. https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI
T+01:02 - A fifth engine is marked out (just after the announcer says "we're throttled down and throttled back up") https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2766
T+01:08 - More sparks (streaks) come from the engine https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2773
T+01:16 - There is a shot of the aft of the rocket and it looks like six engines are out https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2781
T+01:19 - MaxQ is called https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2783
My totally uninformed speculation is that the first stage did not achieve the target velocity (and trajectory?) due to the 6(?) engine failures so the first stage continued to burn and the second stage never separated because the separation conditions were not met (velocity/trajectory).
$9.99 https://www.amazon.com/PARNIXS-Rubber-Box%EF%BC%8CHandcrafte...
Free shipping since she has Prime.
SpaceX acquired a huge amount of data that would have otherwise been lost if the RSO was "quick on the trigger."
Example of a different rocket failure where the range safety officer let the rocket survive until it exceeded the safe trajectory box:
"Astra Rocket 3 LV0006 drifting launch & failure (NASASpaceFlight footage)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxVoBlgzZlQ
A LLM can minic a person, but it is all artificial and not at all intelligent. We humans anthropomorphize everything so we fool ourselves into thinking mimicry is the same as personality.
The flaw in "LLM will become intelligent" thinking is that it supposes that, if only we load enough data into the LLM, it will become intelligent. Intelligence uses data; LLM merely mimics intelligence (with random errors which we overlook since we anthropomorphize it).
Case in point: George Hotz has said "Tesla is going to win Level 5 [...] because it is collecting data on a scale that nobody else is." Yet, four years later, Tesla is still struggling to make self-driving work reliably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ6Xk3ZHso4 (Aug 14, 2019)
"These schemes" were fraud. It is better, and wiser, to eschew fraudulent riches and stay out of jail.
Physics is a harsh mistress; our expectations that the laws of physics could be overcome by technology was unrealistic.