Yeah I don't believe that 2018 target for a minute. That's next year and you don't even have a working rocket that can do that trip yet.
Isn't the largest rocket they currently have only capable of putting a satelite into a Geostationary orbit? Like, wouldn't this take the full Falcon Heavy to actually do?
Yeah I don't believe that 2018 target for a minute. That's next year and you don't even have a working rocket that can do that trip yet.
Isn't the largest rocket they currently have only capable of putting a satelite into a Geostationary orbit? Like, wouldn't this take the full Falcon Heavy to actually do?
Yeah I don't believe that 2018 target for a minute. That's next year and you don't even have a working rocket that can do that trip yet.
Isn't the largest rocket they currently have only capable of putting a satelite into a Geostationary orbit? Like, wouldn't this take the full Falcon Heavy to actually do?
A flyby basically. Getting to the point where you could begin to orbit it
edit: basically each segment is a burn (or atmospheric capture)
Say you go to mars:
Burn #1 puts you in LEO
Burn #2 puts you leaving Earth
Burn #3 adjusts your trajectory to hit Mars at some point
Burn #4 establishes orbit when you get there
Burn #5 lets you land
It's basically the series of standard transfer orbits
In reality Burns 2 & 3 would be combined (possibly 1 as well depending) and 4 & 5 would likely be combined and partially helped by the atmosphere
In kerbal space (where that map originates) it's the point a which the game starts tracking the objects mechanics as a two body problem with respect to that body.
In kerbal space (where that map originates) it's the point a which the game starts tracking the objects mechanics as a two body problem with respect to that body.
Although that is based on a real approximation since patched conics are a solution that's actually used for orbital manoeuvers to allow you simplify a problem to a 2-body solution + correction factors.
A flyby basically. Getting to the point where you could begin to orbit it
edit: basically each segment is a burn (or atmospheric capture)
Say you go to mars:
Burn #1 puts you in LEO
Burn #2 puts you leaving Earth
Burn #3 adjusts your trajectory to hit Mars at some point
Burn #4 establishes orbit when you get there
Burn #5 lets you land
It's basically the series of standard transfer orbits
In reality Burns 2 & 3 would be combined (possibly 1 as well depending) and 4 & 5 would likely be combined and partially helped by the atmosphere
yeah but transfer orbits.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Reusing (word for word) an introduction or abstract from one of your own papers in a grant, research summary, or a fellowship application is (aside from being a bad idea) plagiarism, right? That's what I was taught.
That said, it is exceedingly annoying to write a new intro every time.
Reusing (word for word) an introduction or abstract from one of your own papers in a grant, research summary, or a fellowship application is (aside from being a bad idea) plagiarism, right? That's what I was taught.
That said, it is exceedingly annoying to write a new intro every time.
Don't know about academically, but depending who owns the IP you can totally get in legal trouble for self plagiarism. I could see it being a potential issue best avoided.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Reusing (word for word) an introduction or abstract from one of your own papers in a grant, research summary, or a fellowship application is (aside from being a bad idea) plagiarism, right? That's what I was taught.
That said, it is exceedingly annoying to write a new intro every time.
Don't know about academically, but depending who owns the IP you can totally get in legal trouble for self plagiarism. I could see it being a potential issue best avoided.
Reusing (word for word) an introduction or abstract from one of your own papers in a grant, research summary, or a fellowship application is (aside from being a bad idea) plagiarism, right? That's what I was taught.
That said, it is exceedingly annoying to write a new intro every time.
Yep. I personally think the idea of self-plagiarism is pretty ridiculous, but at least in the case of papers, the publisher generally owns the copyright so there's that. Where it drives me crazy is methods sections, because I feel like they should be excluded from checking because if I did the same procedure/analysis as in a previous study, I want to describe it the same way, but I can't.
Reusing (word for word) an introduction or abstract from one of your own papers in a grant, research summary, or a fellowship application is (aside from being a bad idea) plagiarism, right? That's what I was taught.
That said, it is exceedingly annoying to write a new intro every time.
Yep. I personally think the idea of self-plagiarism is pretty ridiculous, but at least in the case of papers, the publisher generally owns the copyright so there's that. Where it drives me crazy is methods sections, because I feel like they should be excluded from checking because if I did the same procedure/analysis as in a previous study, I want to describe it the same way, but I can't.
I was reading more articles on this last night. There seems to be some consensus that methods sections are at least partially exempt. Or you can just cite it and be done. The issue is more with paper text. I've had like three people give me things to review, and then all of a sudden there's a section written in a totally different voice, and I start googling, then lo and behold its from their last paper.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
And as a related and practical science tip, if your can or bottle has been shaken, tapping on it causes the bubbles stuck on the inner surface to rise into the airspace above the liquid. Because the bubbles are no longer below the liquid, when you open it, you don't sprayed in the face.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
And as a related and practical science tip, if your can or bottle has been shaken, tapping on it causes the bubbles stuck on the inner surface to rise into the airspace above the liquid. Because the bubbles are no longer below the liquid, when you open it, you don't sprayed in the face.
Yeah, but then you have a flat drink. If you just wait it will re-equilibrate.
And as a related and practical science tip, if your can or bottle has been shaken, tapping on it causes the bubbles stuck on the inner surface to rise into the airspace above the liquid. Because the bubbles are no longer below the liquid, when you open it, you don't sprayed in the face.
Yeah, but then you have a flat drink. If you just wait it will re-equilibrate.
Or you shake it some more, hand it to your buddy, and grab a new one out of the fridge.
Perry and colleagues built a platform with a porous ball sitting at the center of it. If a bee went up to the ball, it would find that it could access a reward, sugar water.
One by one, bumblebees walked onto the platform, explored a bit, and then slurped up the sugar water in the middle.
"Essentially, the first experiment was: Can bees learn to roll a ball?" says Perry.
Then, the researchers moved the ball to the edge of the platform.
"The bees came out, looked at the center, didn't have reward. They went to the ball, didn't have reward. They had to figure out that they needed to move the ball from the edge to the center, and then they'd get reward," says Perry.
The ball was a token, like the dollar bill you'd put in a vending machine. The sugar water was like a can of soda that could only be unlocked using the token.
If a bee couldn't figure out how to get the reward, a researcher would demonstrate using a puppet — a plastic bee on the end of a stick — to scoot the ball from the edge of the platform to the center.
"Bees that saw this demonstration learned very quickly how to solve the task. They started rolling the ball into the center; they got better over time," says Perry.
In a second experiment, the researchers found that bees that were able to watch a live bee do the trick first learned even faster. Some even found ways to get the sugar water more quickly by choosing a shorter route.
"It wasn't monkey see, monkey do. They improved on the strategy that they saw," says Perry. "This all shows an unprecedented level of cognitive flexibility, especially for a miniature brain."
This is so far beyond my expectations of insect cognitive capabilities that I can't even.
+26
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
It's pretty cool, though honestly, it makes sense that bees could learn from watching other bees. They already have dance-language, so obtaining information from others is built in.
I'm imagining awesome soccer matches between two nests of bumblebees trained to take the ball to different goals.
There's a danger that such matches would turn violent though. I know wasps and many ants will fight other nests of the same species for resources, but a quick googling didn't turn up anything about bumblebees.
Posts
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
as scot manley pointed out, it takes less delta-v to do what they are suggesting than to get into geostationary orbit
Hmmmm....
*fires up KSP*
Checks out. Orbital mechanics is so counter-intuitive.
This is still my favorite map of the solar system.
edit: basically each segment is a burn (or atmospheric capture)
Say you go to mars:
Burn #1 puts you in LEO
Burn #2 puts you leaving Earth
Burn #3 adjusts your trajectory to hit Mars at some point
Burn #4 establishes orbit when you get there
Burn #5 lets you land
It's basically the series of standard transfer orbits
In reality Burns 2 & 3 would be combined (possibly 1 as well depending) and 4 & 5 would likely be combined and partially helped by the atmosphere
https://youtu.be/-7xvqQeoA8c
Thanks a lot, Boston Dynamics... :?
Switch: nin.codes/roldford
There ever-impressive Tim Blais put out a new hit
I see no one there was brave enough to give it a kick
It doesn't have a set meaning apparently but would generally be the point where gravity of the object generally dominates.
Yeah, I think it just means "move to the relevant position around/on target body". To where you can say you're near it, I guess.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Although that is based on a real approximation since patched conics are a solution that's actually used for orbital manoeuvers to allow you simplify a problem to a 2-body solution + correction factors.
yeah but transfer orbits.
That said, it is exceedingly annoying to write a new intro every time.
Don't know about academically, but depending who owns the IP you can totally get in legal trouble for self plagiarism. I could see it being a potential issue best avoided.
It's a thing in academia too, p sure.
Can I get one of those with a chair on it's back? Just, let me ride around on it for a bit.
I did not expect the mech-anime to get the future to be correct to be Rideback.
Yep. I personally think the idea of self-plagiarism is pretty ridiculous, but at least in the case of papers, the publisher generally owns the copyright so there's that. Where it drives me crazy is methods sections, because I feel like they should be excluded from checking because if I did the same procedure/analysis as in a previous study, I want to describe it the same way, but I can't.
This made my day, thanks!
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I was reading more articles on this last night. There seems to be some consensus that methods sections are at least partially exempt. Or you can just cite it and be done. The issue is more with paper text. I've had like three people give me things to review, and then all of a sudden there's a section written in a totally different voice, and I start googling, then lo and behold its from their last paper.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Make sure to check out the rest of his videos if you haven't. There's some amazing stuff there.
And as a related and practical science tip, if your can or bottle has been shaken, tapping on it causes the bubbles stuck on the inner surface to rise into the airspace above the liquid. Because the bubbles are no longer below the liquid, when you open it, you don't sprayed in the face.
Yeah, but then you have a flat drink. If you just wait it will re-equilibrate.
Or you shake it some more, hand it to your buddy, and grab a new one out of the fridge.
Here's a nice short video of the experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsrX6qsKkA
This is so far beyond my expectations of insect cognitive capabilities that I can't even.
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
There's a danger that such matches would turn violent though. I know wasps and many ants will fight other nests of the same species for resources, but a quick googling didn't turn up anything about bumblebees.
bees convincing the other team they are correct is fair game
Can't agree and awesome so just the awesome then.
PSN:Furlion