*other examples include that the avage horse has about 1.2 horse power and HD sellers clame there are 1,000,000 bytes in a MB
When my daughter was a teenager she used to excuse what she was doing by changing the definitions of the words to suit her. This is no different.
Quote from: clongton on 06/12/2010 06:27 pmWhen my daughter was a teenager she used to excuse what she was doing by changing the definitions of the words to suit her. This is no different.Why don't we just talk exactly about what we mean, then, instead of using subjective and qualitative terms? For instance, we can talk about payload to LEO (or TLI or escape). Is it really the case that what determines a "big enough" launch vehicle is going to occur exactly on the 100mt line? Why no 70 tons or 130 tons to LEO?(Of course, why not 30 or 40 tons to LEO...)
Quote from: clongton on 06/12/2010 06:27 pmWhen my daughter was a teenager she used to excuse what she was doing by changing the definitions of the words to suit her. This is no different.Why don't we just talk exactly about what we mean?
Why don't we just talk exactly about what we mean, then, instead of using subjective and qualitative terms? For instance, we can talk about payload to LEO (or TLI or escape). Is it really the case that what determines a "big enough" launch vehicle is going to occur exactly on the 100mt line? Why no 70 tons or 130 tons to LEO?(Of course, why not 30 or 40 tons to LEO...)
No, everybody is in discussion with NASA. It is the HLV RFI. SpaceX is just one of many contractors. They have no advantage here.
Quote from: Jim on 06/12/2010 04:31 amNo, everybody is in discussion with NASA. It is the HLV RFI. SpaceX is just one of many contractors. They have no advantage here.SpaceX says they are talking with NASA about some type of public/private partnership.http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3
Does it matter?
Quote from: Tnarg on 06/12/2010 06:52 pm*other examples include that the avage horse has about 1.2 horse power and HD sellers clame there are 1,000,000 bytes in a MBThere are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
Quote from: Idol Revolver on 06/12/2010 07:23 pmQuote from: Tnarg on 06/12/2010 06:52 pm*other examples include that the avage horse has about 1.2 horse power and HD sellers clame there are 1,000,000 bytes in a MBThere are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.You just demonstrated that you know nothing about computers. The IEEE consortium definition you refer to here has a clear exception for base-2 elements, such as computers. To a base-2 system, a Megabyte is 1048 kilobytes, which itself is 1048 bytes. Any other definition breaks the computer model. Computers don't think in base-ten, they think in base-2, on/off, that's it. To have them count as we do, you will only add inefficiencies into the design, hurting your performance.
Quote from: Downix on 06/13/2010 12:10 amQuote from: Idol Revolver on 06/12/2010 07:23 pmQuote from: Tnarg on 06/12/2010 06:52 pm*other examples include that the avage horse has about 1.2 horse power and HD sellers clame there are 1,000,000 bytes in a MBThere are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.You just demonstrated that you know nothing about computers. The IEEE consortium definition you refer to here has a clear exception for base-2 elements, such as computers. To a base-2 system, a Megabyte is 1048 kilobytes, which itself is 1048 bytes. Any other definition breaks the computer model. Computers don't think in base-ten, they think in base-2, on/off, that's it. To have them count as we do, you will only add inefficiencies into the design, hurting your performance.No, there's a new "standard" that tries to define a megabyte in SI units, 1000*1000 bytes. It renames 1024*1024 to "mebibyte".However, I'm an old dog and will go to my grave calling 1024*1024 a megabyte.
They can try calling it whatever it is, a computer won't care, it must function in base 2. It will not understand, nor care, for 1000x1000 as megabytes, it does not compute, nor function, within the silicon world of ones or zeros.1024x1024 is all they understand. All they can understand. We cannot "standardize" around this, any more than we can standardize anti-gravity or the laws of inertia.
Sounds to me as though someone like Elon needs to come up with a new word for the world to use.Byte, Kilobyte, Megabyte etc have been used consistently in computing for a lot longer than the public realizes. Those terms should remain consistent with binary 2^x counting methods -- which is what they were created for in the first place.But for public consumption, for those that find it too difficult to handle the 24 extra bytes in a kilobyte, why not invent a brand new term specifically to differentiate the decimal counting version? A cool sounding ultra-modern name in the style of "Google" and "Renkoo" would be a perfect fit for such a techie requirement aimed at consumers and non-binary folk.
Back to Falcon Super Heavy.How about this road for SpaceX? - Develop a 1.5MN kerolox engine (3 times as powerful as the current Merlin 1C). Should be doable, let's call them Merlin 2. - Phase out Falcon 9 by flying a new "Falcon 5", basically Falcon 9 but with 5 of the new Merlin 2 engines. That should put the rocket firmly in the 15-20mt to LEO range - then go for a "Falcon 5 Heavy", basically their plan to use two first stages as liquid strap-ons. They would only have 15 first stage engines to worry about (still a lot, but less than the 27 they plan for F9H right now) and would probably be in the 40-50mt+ range with that vehicle, satisfying NASA's need for an HLV.First step would be the development of the 1.5MN kerolox engine, an engine only slightly above 1/3rd of the thrust of an RD-180 and "only" about 3 times as powerful as Merlin 1C. Would be a perfect candidate for a NASA sponsored first stage kerolox engine suitable for the use in a future HLV.
A 1.5Mlbf engine might arguably be too big. The 9 Merlin 1Cs in the Falcon 9 put out roughly 1Mlbf. Too big of a rocket engine looks like it would not be economically viable or profitable. Would they have enough customers for such big lifts to sustain it?
Quote from: upjin on 06/13/2010 08:12 amA 1.5Mlbf engine might arguably be too big. The 9 Merlin 1Cs in the Falcon 9 put out roughly 1Mlbf. Too big of a rocket engine looks like it would not be economically viable or profitable. Would they have enough customers for such big lifts to sustain it?Merlin 1C is at 600kN in vacuum already. I didn't say 1.5Mlbf, I said 1.5MN (=1500kN).