That's specific power, not specific energy. Do you mean 1 kW*r/kg?
I thought the same thing.
They broke split screen on the switch.
That's very similar to my experience.
That's generally what you should do with a scientific model: state your assumptions and methodology clearly. And most if not all scientific and engineering models spread properties across a group of objects and use…
You're supposed to say "kriging" at least once in this post. :P
I created this entry. It's evolved considerably. I do still recommend the original source I used: The Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War II by David Mondey. It's great.
The terms are gas giant and terrestrial (or rocky) planet. They're already there.
Yes to pressure part and no to the venturi part. Well, it's not enough. You still have to generate a downdraft to conserve momentum and the venturi idea doesn't explain that.
Seconded. Masters in ASE, written my own vortex lattice code from scratch. "Wings generate lift by changing the velocity of the flow around them" seems general and correct but the why part is pretty tricky without…
In an absolute sense you're not going to prevent any deaths unless you're preventing lives. Everybody alive is going to die. One less death relative to what?
It's quadratic. Polynomial would also have been acceptable. But what they meant to say is "superlinear". Like aetherson, this drives me nuts.
Including those at NASA.
And as far as I can tell, organizations struggle with doing multilevel and multidisciplinary optimization.
That seems incompleat. Could you continue?
His father Dell is an inch taller with the same listed weight and played from '86 to '02. He's probably a good initial comparison.
"Third, like I said, not modern air force is ignoring IRST." Right? I mean, just consider the B-2 and F-117 exhausts and the amount of work done to reduce their thermal signatures.
Yep. Edit: To be clear, I wasn't saying it was lower.
Presumably, those estimates are just for the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME/RS-25), give that's what Rocketdyne was manufacturing and propulsion is one of Marshall Spaceflight Center's fortes.
In the context that it's required to get certain jobs? So we -- society -- have screwed up in conflating education and job training?
"Yes. I'll also add the 4-year education is incredibly inefficient, in terms of skills added over time" I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a university degree is entirely about workforce skills.
It was the perfect comment.
Err.... NASA software, yes. No Mars probes yet. Yeah, I know, I know.
Edit: Ok, ok, I totally screwed that up. Damnit. Sorry, everyone. Grams aren't kilograms. The freaking base unit shouldn't have a prefix. 2000mg/kg = 2, right? Like 2kg of medicine for every one kg of body mass? That…
How is 1+1=1 easy to achieve?
That's specific power, not specific energy. Do you mean 1 kW*r/kg?
I thought the same thing.
They broke split screen on the switch.
That's very similar to my experience.
That's generally what you should do with a scientific model: state your assumptions and methodology clearly. And most if not all scientific and engineering models spread properties across a group of objects and use…
You're supposed to say "kriging" at least once in this post. :P
I created this entry. It's evolved considerably. I do still recommend the original source I used: The Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War II by David Mondey. It's great.
The terms are gas giant and terrestrial (or rocky) planet. They're already there.
Yes to pressure part and no to the venturi part. Well, it's not enough. You still have to generate a downdraft to conserve momentum and the venturi idea doesn't explain that.
Seconded. Masters in ASE, written my own vortex lattice code from scratch. "Wings generate lift by changing the velocity of the flow around them" seems general and correct but the why part is pretty tricky without…
In an absolute sense you're not going to prevent any deaths unless you're preventing lives. Everybody alive is going to die. One less death relative to what?
It's quadratic. Polynomial would also have been acceptable. But what they meant to say is "superlinear". Like aetherson, this drives me nuts.
Including those at NASA.
And as far as I can tell, organizations struggle with doing multilevel and multidisciplinary optimization.
That seems incompleat. Could you continue?
His father Dell is an inch taller with the same listed weight and played from '86 to '02. He's probably a good initial comparison.
"Third, like I said, not modern air force is ignoring IRST." Right? I mean, just consider the B-2 and F-117 exhausts and the amount of work done to reduce their thermal signatures.
Yep. Edit: To be clear, I wasn't saying it was lower.
Presumably, those estimates are just for the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME/RS-25), give that's what Rocketdyne was manufacturing and propulsion is one of Marshall Spaceflight Center's fortes.
In the context that it's required to get certain jobs? So we -- society -- have screwed up in conflating education and job training?
"Yes. I'll also add the 4-year education is incredibly inefficient, in terms of skills added over time" I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a university degree is entirely about workforce skills.
It was the perfect comment.
Err.... NASA software, yes. No Mars probes yet. Yeah, I know, I know.
Edit: Ok, ok, I totally screwed that up. Damnit. Sorry, everyone. Grams aren't kilograms. The freaking base unit shouldn't have a prefix. 2000mg/kg = 2, right? Like 2kg of medicine for every one kg of body mass? That…
How is 1+1=1 easy to achieve?