4 ms·

Because the tube must be maintained at a near-vacuum, it can't be "gaps" -- it would have to be expanding slip joints Well you're doing to me what the Dr. is d

• lutusp 13y ago
  > Obviously they'd have to be airtight, but there would indeed be gaps between the sections. I objected because you used the term "gaps". They cannot be gaps, they have to be overlapping airtight section joints. There were no gaps between the sections of the Space Shuttle solid-rocket boosters either, except just once, and we all remember that day. To understand the problem with your description, just repeat to yourself, "airtight gaps", until the contradiction occurs to you.
  • wissler 13y ago
    Your trifling quibbles don't matter. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you implement it, my original point stands. The Dr. is suffering from a lack of imagination.
    • lutusp 13y ago
      > Your trifling quibbles don't matter ... Trifling quibbles? It was "airtight gaps" that brought Challenger down and killed seven astronauts. If you intend to argue using words, at least learn their meanings.
      • wissler 13y ago
        You're the one who can't use words properly. A "gap" is a generic term, an "airtight gap" is a type of "gap." You're quibbling about words, you're on the wrong side of the quibble, and on top of all that, you're not even dealing with the main point I brought up. Please tell me you're not a programmer.