Jump to content

Mudguard

Members
  • Posts

    2,276
  • Joined

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    California

Recent Profile Visitors

4,033 profile views

Mudguard's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. seems very likely that those engines are going to be really late and the missions that rely on them will be delayed. not sure if those contracts can be cancelled and if there are any viable alternatives. if these engines fall under the congressionally protected contracts, there is potentially very little that can be done if blue origin is late and/or runs up the cost.
  2. Yeah, Bezos has enough money to keep Blue Origin going for decades. I'm sure they'll eventually get the New Glenn operational. Maybe in a couple years or so.
  3. It's not a bad practice to mask up. Besides Covid, it helps with influenza and other respiratory diseases. Apparently, all the masking and social distancing worked really well to drop the numbers of influenza infections and deaths we normally see. It's often a low effort precaution, so why not. But to be honest, I'm definitely feeling the effects of covid fatigue, where I'm not as strict as before. I think with an annual updated booster, like for influenza, I'll more or less go back to business as usual, unless there is indication that the updated booster missed the mark.
  4. that's my guess, but they haven't made the call yet to my knowledge. maybe they will give it one more try. if they roll it back the next window would be in October.
  5. scrubbed again due to more technical issues.
  6. Let me first state that I think global warming is real and is one of the greatest problems we face today as a species. The effects could potentially be catastrophic over the next one to two hundred years. That said, it is not inevitable that sea levels are going to rise a foot and a half over the next 100 years or so as the article claims. For one, the study, which is based on a model that relies on many assumptions, specifies no timeframe in which the sea level rise will occur. It could happen in 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, etc. Other types of models have a time component, but are also associated with large degrees of uncertainty. Two, this sea level rise is based on the calculated loss of ice in Greenland over a specified period of time. Presumably, this ice will eventually make it's way into the ocean. However, there is nothing that prohibits in the future the regrowth of ice in Greenland. This would balance out the loss of ice and reduce the future rise in sea level. And for the millionth time, any time you hear about models in fields where predictions are notoriously difficult to make, like in climate or in pandemic disease prediction or the economy for example, take those predictions with a giant grain of salt. The models are always based on many assumptions and are attempting to reduce an extremely complex phenomena into a relatively small number of measurable factors so that we can try and predict the future.
  7. Looks like they are going to give it another go on Saturday. Apparently, instead of fixing the cooling system malfunction, they are going to try using a workaround procedure in order to cool down the engine to the appropriate temperature. They are just going to start cooling the problem engine earlier and hope that they can reach the right temperature. Theoretically, it could work. Not sure how much testing they've done to determine whether their proposed procedure change will work, but if they are sure that the cooling problem won't affect anything else once the engines are fired up, then it's worth a shot. I have no idea how critical it is to properly cool the engines before ignition. The stated rationale is to prevent temperature shock to the engine. Is this something that could actually cause catastrophic engine failure? Or cause enough of a performance problem later on that it jeopardizes the mission? Despite my last post, I hope the launch succeeds. Any failure at this point, particularly a catastrophic failure, would set the program back years.
  8. Is the SLS program on one of those cost-plus type contracts in which there is no incentive to get things done on time and on budget? Actually it's probably worse, there is actually incentive to run up the costs and string things along as long as possible in these cost plus contracts, unless you have some sort of enforceable penalty. I think the SLS program might be actually protected by law, which makes it extremely difficult to just cancel, if you wanted to get out. Pretty sure they are already years behind schedule and many billions over budget, all without any significant consequence, so far. If SpaceX can get Starship up and running soon, Congress should really consider amending the law so that the SLS contract isn't protected. The cost per launch of SLS is ridiculous; it's several billion dollars per launch. They really need some competition. What is crazy is that we went to the moon over 50 years ago, with only the most basic types of computers. I think computers were programmed with punch cards back then. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and others have been in this business for many decades, yet just doing the same thing that was done 50 years ago is a monumental task for them. Compare this to what SpaceX has done over the past 10-20 years, starting from nothing. They, and some of the other newer private companies, are finally advancing the space industry again. Going back to the SLS launch, I'm very pessimistic that the problem can be fixed in time for the next couple launch windows, which are all coming up soon. Are they really going to risk a $3-4 billion dollar rocket right now? I'm expecting them to roll the rocket back to the hanger. An explosion and loss of the rocket would probably be enough for Congress to amend the law and open up the contract, if another company like SpaceX can demonstrate the required capability soon.
  9. Yeah, it went to my spam folder this time. Thanks for letting me know.
  10. Any of those days are fine with me.
  11. Right now, I think I'm OK with any of those dates.
  12. I'm in for C, and if there is room in B, I'd like a chance to defend my title.
  13. I think the rule of thumb that is recommended is for roughly 80% of your running to be at an easy pace and 20% at the higher intensity. And it's best to gradually ramp up to the higher intensity workouts. For example, start with higher pace intervals of 30 seconds followed by a minute or two at an easy pace, and repeat for 8-10 times. Over time, you can slowly increase the length of the high intensity interval. Same thing with the speed. Don't make a big jump in speed right at the beginning. If 11 min/mile is your easy pace, you can initially do your short intervals at 10:30 min/mile pace or maybe 10:00 min/mile. I'm just getting over a long layoff in my running due to an overuse injury because of trying to do too much too fast, because I often get impatient and want to speed up improvements in my times. It's natural to think that if I just run faster and harder for longer, I'll see results quicker. That is true to a point, but if you do too much, your body can't recover enough between workouts and will begin to break down. This is how stress fractures and shin splits can develop, as well as other connective tissue type injuries. Adding in rest days and adding in easy runs in between your harder runs will help avoid these types of injuries.
  14. to be honest, that graph is essentially useless. I certainly would not base any health care recommendations on it. long COVID is not well understood or even well characterized, so the data around it is very sketchy at best. then add in the massive assumptions that are made to come up with an extremely simplistic graph. doubt this paper gets published outside of his tweet.
×
×
  • Create New...