uikjhgyujmn

5 ms·

1.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
The radomes (actually covers over satelite receiver dishes) are held up by air pressure. This avoids any metal framework that would interfere with the signal
2.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
>Why should anyone have to die for electricity Depends - if it's our citizens following an accident obviously never. If it's some civilians in the middle east that happen to be living on top of our oil, or some poor people in the 3rd wo
3.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
The problem is who 'they' are The CIA/NSA etc spying on the US and UK's enemies? Or US companies spying on UK companies to gain a competitive advantage? If you were a BP boss would you be confident that they weren't handing your emails over
4.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
Not allowed to fly cryogens on the shuttle as a safety feature. You also aren't allowed to carry propellant or use propellant on serviceable satellites, that was one of the design problems with the HST + shuttle. It's not a shuttle specifi
5.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
Yes there is weapons grade screw up - but closing unrelated reactors on the other side of the world just because they are 'nuclear' is as silly as stopping trains until the tracks in Bavaria can be protected against a Tsunami.
6.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
No, but all the sheep do face north
7.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
Two trains carrying 1800 people were lost because the trains weren't Tsunami proof. I assume Germany is also shutting down the ICE as a precaution?
8.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
I think you have BWR/PWR he wrong way round in the first point
9.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
Herschel is cryogenic so can't last anyway. Hubble was in a particularly bad orbit specifically because of the shuttle but any manned servicing would still require it to be in LEO, there is no way you are servicing something at the Lagrange
10.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
OTOH Hubble cost 3x as much to build because it had to be serviceable by the Shuttle and it's scientific use was greatly compromised by the orbit it had to be in. Each service mission cost (in real $) as much as building a non-shuttle HST.
11.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
Apparently they have a special exemption. It's illegal for dell to let somebody in Russia download a driver but it's OK for the US government to pay for Russian rocket launches.
12.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
The problem is that Nasa don't seem to have a reason for having astronauts there - other than without the astronauts there would be no interest and no Nasa. You could make it safer by replacing the Shuttle with an Apollo era capsule and sti
13.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
There are a few countries where those who are connected with the current government are doing rather well - certainly well enough to have $100K. Some of those governments might soon be suffering from an outbreak of democracy. If you were li
14.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
It was proposed in Northern Ireland during a power workers strike. Although considering the limited electrical power you can pull from even a nuclear sub and the 'security implications' of parking one in Belfast during the euphemisms it nev
15.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
That's the risk - you make an unnecessary manned vehicle to launch satellites because you can get funding for it being 'our brave heroic astronauts' then when it goes wrong the same publicity comes back and bites you. Exploration of the Wes
16.
by uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
I thought that they weren't allowed to because Russia is an axis of evil / evil empire / not in the coalition of the willing/ eats peas with their knife - or whatever the term of the day is.