The Standard Model Imploding?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:18 pm

Before they thought about crossfeeding from the two outer cores, they had slightly different plans for future LVs at SpaceX. I think that this chart is outdated meanwhile, especially with the announcement about the new engines, they are planning to develop. Either way, it kinda fits with your thought, Kite.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/spacex ... r-125.html

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:22 pm

Well you have won, the senate has finally ruined the US manned space programme. Commercial crew is not only underfunded, they also demand that NASA not use the Space Act agreement, which means that funding will be less efficient.
So basically this means it is over. I doubt we will see human launch on US rockets again within my lifetime. Well done Senate! Well done.
Time for me to give up on my interest in human spaceflight. I will never, ever be able to go anywhere myself anyway. US citizens will be left with the Russians. Still better and cheaper than the shuttles were, but not really the best situation.
Thanks politicians, you really know how to ruin everything for your pork!

The other sad news of the day is that the US has unfunded all fusion research but Tok related stuff... Its been a bad day...

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:17 pm

KitemanSA wrote: Should lift ~125Mg.

No one uses Megagrams. Let's stick to Tons, otherwise we are just going to make a hell of confusion in most of the people that lurk here

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:21 pm

Skipjack wrote:Thanks politicians, you really know how to ruin everything for your pork!

The other sad news of the day is that the US has unfunded all fusion research but Tok related stuff... Its been a bad day...

Sad day indeed.... looks like the US scientific advance has taken a really bad road lately.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:20 pm

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Should lift ~125Mg.
No one uses Megagrams. Let's stick to Tons, otherwise we are just going to make a hell of confusion in most of the people that lurk here

Fine, but either use "tonne" or "metric ton" because a "ton" is 2000 pounds.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:32 pm

metric ton

I think is more precise.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:40 am

Skipjack wrote:
metric ton
I think is more precise.

Thanks, it is the US term for the derived SI unit "tonne". See, even SI users don't (use SI I mean!).

93143 · Post by **93143** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:05 am

Edited. Trying to get meta about this is pointless. Either I will argue or I will not.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:22 pm

93143 wrote:Edited. Trying to get meta about this is pointless. Either I will argue or I will not.

Ohhhmmm!

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:14 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Should lift ~125Mg.
No one uses Megagrams. Let's stick to Tons, otherwise we are just going to make a hell of confusion in most of the people that lurk here
Fine, but either use "tonne" or "metric ton" because a "ton" is 2000 pounds.

The problem with non metric countries is that it is quite difficult to fix a standard value for almost any basic unit.
Here a ton is 1000Kg simply because we never had any other unit of reference to confuse it with.
I think that it should be commonly accepted by now that a Ton is 1000 kg of something.

I think, but I am not sure

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:55 pm

When I was growing up, there were 20 cwt (hundredweight 112lb) in a ton (2240lb)

No wonder the standard model is imploding.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:40 pm

Giorgio wrote: The problem with non metric countries is that it is quite difficult to fix a standard value for almost any basic unit.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.

Giorgio wrote: Here a ton is 1000Kg simply because we never had any other unit of reference to confuse it with.

Except that you confuse it with your own unit. The SI derived unit for 1000kg is the tonne, not the ton. The ton is SOLEY an imperial unit, and it it the LONG ton that is 100cwt as I said before and parallel repeated.

Giorgio wrote: I think that it should be commonly accepted by now that a Ton is 1000 kg of something.

Only by those who don't know their own system.

Giorgio wrote: I think, but I am not sure

Then take it from someone who is!

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:55 am

Kite he did say "here". Growing up thru primary school in France I learned the same: "a ton" means a thousand kilograms. That's it, nothing more complex than that.

Out of the blue, Mg is not intuitive.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:56 pm

That is odd since it was the French who insisted on the "tonne" spelling. Don't usually have good things to say about the French, but in this case (if those who are SUPPOSED to be SI users would ACTUALLY use SI) there would be a pleasant reduction in confusion.

Why not start now. When you mean 1000kg, write tonne. When you mean 2000 lb, write ton. When you mean 20 cwt, write Long ton (I'd accept l-ton).

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:04 pm

Sure. But the point is that anytime you heard ton it was almost negligible chance it meant anything but 1000 kg. I can't recall the last time, if ever, that I saw Mg meaning million kg.

I don't mind it myself but it's not intuitive at first glance for probably most people.