...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
Next: What is the correct term for this type of chart?
From: Androcles on 16 Dec 2009 14:48 "Rick Jones" <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote in message news:hgba70$hpl$4(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com... > In sci.space.history tadchem <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> "Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of >> unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no- >> fly zone recently. > >> I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the >> victims. > > You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not > the pilot. > > A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the > building if a pilot flies into it? > > rick jones > -- > A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? Q: Is middle-posting more muddling? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: Rick Jones on 16 Dec 2009 14:53 In sci.space.history jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote: > > In sci.space.history tadchem <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> "Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of > >> unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no- > >> fly zone recently. > > > >> I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the > >> victims. > > > > You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not > > the pilot. > > > > A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the > > building if a pilot flies into it? > > > > rick jones > Buildings are visible Not always. Same with mountains. Darkness, clouds, fog... And yet one could easily postulate that the beam site would be surrounded by any number of towers with the same sorts of strobes present on tall buildings, so the site wouldn't be any less visible than buildings. Sure, the pilot might be thinking he is high enough to clear the "buildings" but he is supposed to have checked-out his flight path and have up-to-date charts and all that correct? > and don't extend from the surface all the way through the > atmosphere. True. rick jones -- The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose." - Rick Jones these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
From: Androcles on 16 Dec 2009 15:07 "Rick Jones" <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote in message news:hgbdqv$hpl$7(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com... > In sci.space.history jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote: >> > In sci.space.history tadchem <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> "Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of >> >> unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no- >> >> fly zone recently. >> > >> >> I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the >> >> victims. >> > >> > You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not >> > the pilot. >> > >> > A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the >> > building if a pilot flies into it? >> > >> > rick jones > >> Buildings are visible > > Not always. Same with mountains. Darkness, clouds, fog... If I were flying in darkness, cloud or fog I'd stay well clear of charted mountains and cities with tall buildings in them. But then I'd have to be flying for a commercial purpose, not for fun. > > And yet one could easily postulate that the beam site would be > surrounded by any number of towers with the same sorts of strobes > present on tall buildings, so the site wouldn't be any less visible > than buildings. > > Sure, the pilot might be thinking he is high enough to clear the > "buildings" but he is supposed to have checked-out his flight path and > have up-to-date charts and all that correct? > >> and don't extend from the surface all the way through the >> atmosphere. > > True. > > rick jones > -- > The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as > it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose." > - Rick Jones > these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) > feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
From: jimp on 16 Dec 2009 15:16 In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote: > In sci.space.history jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote: >> > In sci.space.history tadchem <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> "Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of >> >> unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no- >> >> fly zone recently. >> > >> >> I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the >> >> victims. >> > >> > You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not >> > the pilot. >> > >> > A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the >> > building if a pilot flies into it? >> > >> > rick jones > >> Buildings are visible > > Not always. Same with mountains. Darkness, clouds, fog... > > And yet one could easily postulate that the beam site would be > surrounded by any number of towers with the same sorts of strobes > present on tall buildings, so the site wouldn't be any less visible > than buildings. > > Sure, the pilot might be thinking he is high enough to clear the > "buildings" but he is supposed to have checked-out his flight path and > have up-to-date charts and all that correct? For existing things there is the concept of minimum enroute altitude which ensures you are above all the obstacles for a significant distance. There is no getting above an energy beam from space. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Rick Jones on 16 Dec 2009 16:19
In sci.space.history jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote: > > Sure, the pilot might be thinking he is high enough to clear the > > "buildings" but he is supposed to have checked-out his flight path > > and have up-to-date charts and all that correct? > For existing things there is the concept of minimum enroute altitude > which ensures you are above all the obstacles for a significant > distance. > There is no getting above an energy beam from space. In which case, one presumes a flight path that went withing some chosen distance of these beams would have a minimum enroute altitude of GEO expressed in whatever the customary units would be right? rick jones -- I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of "when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |