The Standard Model Imploding?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:41 pm

Kite I like the idea. In fact now I think I thought of the same thing.. "Why don't people go all the way and call em mega/giga meters" was the thought at some point thru college. But it's so rare, that IMO the reality is most people wouldn't click with it unless it was more than something that only came up so very rarely.

I could be completely wrong.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:53 pm

Betruger wrote:Kite I like the idea. In fact now I think I thought of the same thing.. "Why don't people go all the way and call em mega/giga meters" was the thought at some point thru college. But it's so rare, that IMO the reality is most people wouldn't click with it unless it was more than something that only came up so very rarely.

I could be completely wrong.

I don't mind if folks say "tonne" for 1000kg. It is when they say "ton" that I am peeved. I guess the SI crowd just can't spell their own units. Humph!

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:09 pm

Actually, the German word is "Tonne" and getting that right is never a problem. The issue is that everyone is tought in school and dictionaries (like the link that I posted earlier) that the English word for "Tonne" is "ton" and that is where the confusion starts.

Henning · Post by **Henning** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:05 pm

So the Standard Model is imploding because of differences between metric ton and imperial ton -- and Americans not speaking propper German. Always thought so.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:49 am

Of course. When you try to suck out one tonne of stuff from a one ton package, things are just naturally going to implode!

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:18 am

Henning wrote:So the Standard Model is imploding because of differences between metric ton and imperial ton -- and Americans not speaking propper German. Always thought so.

The Mars Climate Orbiter mess was a clear indication that this was going to happen....

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:59 pm

The Mars Climate Orbiter mess was a clear indication that this was going to happen....

Yeah, didn that end up in a geostationary subterranian orbit somewhere below Mars's surface?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:18 pm

Yes, they quickly renamed it "The Mars tunnel excavation experiment"

93143 · Post by **93143** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:26 am

...huh.

I've had a point-by-point broadside ready for about a week, and apparently I'm not too eager to post it...

Skipjack, it seems to me that you've been exposed to nothing but one viewpoint for so long that you've started to assume that its proponents' half-informed opinions are commonly-accepted facts. If you could get past the handwaving and buzzwords and dismissive sarcasm, you'd realize that there are two sides to this issue, and that it's much more complex than you're making out.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:51 am

Yes, I have heard the other side from Senators Shelby and co. It did not convince me.
As I mentioned before, shameless Shelby even bragged about getting pork for his district by inserting language for a super heavy lifter into the bill.
But then again, I ask you, where is the mission architecture that requires a super heavy lifter with 130 tons of lift?
And if there is the architecture, where is the money for that mission to come from?
And even then, what point is there in doing a single one shot stunt?
I think that Elon Musk is on a much better path. He completely understands the issues and his plan is much better than anything that has come out of NASA in 30 years or more.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:26 am

Skipjack wrote:I think that Elon Musk is on a much better path. He completely understands the issues and his plan is much better than anything that has come out of NASA in 30 years or more.

His plan is extremely ambitious, but yes, is much better (and bolder) than anything NASA has proposed in the last 30 years. I have to fully agree with you on this.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:28 pm

His plan is extremely ambitious, but yes, is much better (and bolder) than anything NASA has proposed in the last 30 years. I have to fully agree with you on this.

Actually it has a much higher chance of success than X33 and X30 had. Even better than my fav DC-X, but less ambitious than all of them.
It will still be cool to see that work. It is very simillar to what Kistler was planning on doing.

EricF · Post by **EricF** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:54 pm

Is Space-X supposed to be the ones to put the James Webb space telescope in orbit?

93143 · Post by **93143** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:13 pm

Skipjack wrote:Yes, I have heard the other side from Senators Shelby and co.

[*facepalm*]

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:59 pm

Is Space-X supposed to be the ones to put the James Webb space telescope in orbit?

IIRC, that would be an Ariane V, rather than a SpaceX rocket. Its part of the European involvement in the project.