|
Carbon dioxide posted:I meant it more as a general thing than directed at you. Some people see her as THE icon of women in science. Hell, PZ Myers gives his intro biology students a bonus exam question: name any female scientist besides Marie Curie. Most of them can't come up with another name.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Hell, PZ Myers gives his intro biology students a bonus exam question: name any female scientist besides Marie Curie. Most of them can't come up with another name. What, Rosalind Franklin isn't the obvious go-to for that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Vera Rubin, Sally Ride (she had a PhD), Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Annie Jump Cannon, Wilhelmina Herschel, Carolyn Shoemaker- and those are just in the field of astronomy and astrophysics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Ada Lovelace was the first to come to mind for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Hedy Lamarr! Genius and beautiful!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Rosalind Franklin, who deserved a share in a Nobel Prize but sadly never got it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:What, Rosalind Franklin isn't the obvious go-to for that? Would've been for me. I think Jane Goodall was the most common response, but I might be misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Ada Lovelace was the first to come to mind for me. Same, plus Grace Hopper. Computer science counts, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Angela Merkel
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Lise Meitner. ~~you'll always be a Nobel winner in my heart~~
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Natalie Portman
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I meant it more as a general thing than directed at you. Some people see her as THE icon of women in science. Hell, most icons are this way. Ford, Edison, Mother Theresa, Columbus, etc etc. All huge asshats. I can name two people that are as true as they portrayed themselves to be; Mr Rogers, and Carl Sagan. Or, at least, I haven't heard/read about any skeletons in their closet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Hell, most icons are this way. Don't forget all the great leaders of antiquity who were straight-up mass murderers! We're in a period of history where it's no longer in vogue to personally slaughter hundreds of people with an edged weapon because it suits your ambition, but there was a time when that was pretty much the main qualifier for being a literal king.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Rosalind Franklin, who deserved a share in a Nobel Prize but sadly never got it. Seriously, I wonder how many people know the names Crick and Watson, but not Franklin and Wilkins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:Hedy Lamarr! Genius and beautiful! That's Hedley!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:I can name two people that are as true as they portrayed themselves to be; Mr Rogers, and Carl Sagan. Or, at least, I haven't heard/read about any skeletons in their closet. Well, Sagan did propose nuking the moon, but I think that gets chalked up to youthful indiscretion. But Mr. Rogers, yeah, it seems like he really was too good for this world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:That's Hedley! Hey maybe he meant Dr. Kleiner's pet headcrab, you don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Are we all forgetting noted lady scientist Dr. Christmas Jones?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Well, Sagan did propose nuking the moon, but I think that gets chalked up to youthful indiscretion. Yes, but because of that we now know Neil Armstrong is a government-approved replacement for a nuclear missile
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
ullerrm posted:It gets better if you actually watch the video that said clip is from. He cuts the transformer core open and replaces the original secondary winding with a new winding using far fewer coils, then glues the core back together with epoxy. I've heard that even touching one of the transformers inside a stereo tube amplifier (part of the extremely dangerous procedure known as rebiasing) with improper technique can electrocute you, so 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Well, Sagan did propose nuking the moon, but I think that gets chalked up to youthful indiscretion. I don't recall that, but Sagan was a support of the Orion Gun. Using Nukes to push spaceships to close to light speed. Edit: Make it clearer. The Orion gun was an underground structure, in which you would use a nuclear blast to shoot items into orbit. You couldn't send living things, but it would make sending materials to build space ports incredibly cheap per pound to get into orbit. The Guns structure was supposedly incredibly safe and self contained. However, due to various reasons, one was never built. We wouldn't have to rely on chemical rockets today, except to get people into orbit, if we had an Orion Gun. VV The Bomb powered ship, would have been launched from a space port, and would likely more away from the port on it's own power before using the bombs. Space is incredibly empty and filled with radiation anyway. Wouldn't have hurt anything./ Johnny Aztec has a new favorite as of 00:42 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Yeah but that's actually a really cool way to travel through space. Stupid as hell and dangerous but the whole premise of using bombs to travel at speeds greater then what we can get in current tech is really cool. Just would radiate a good portion of the launch area and make it sterile to everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Edit: Make it clearer. The Orion gun was an underground structure, in which you would use a nuclear blast to shoot items into orbit. You couldn't send living things, but it would make sending materials to build space ports incredibly cheap per pound to get into orbit. Would this work? I thought you would need a secondary stage in order to circularise the orbit, or else it could only be used to launch things on an escape trajectory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Would this work? I thought you would need a secondary stage in order to circularise the orbit, or else it could only be used to launch things on an escape trajectory. You could probably give it the right suborbital trajectory that it would have an apoapsis close enough to an orbiting space station that it could offload its cargo before falling back down. I think? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I haven't played enough Kerbal Space Program to test my theory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Only if that cargo can zero out the relative velocity between it and the station, a.k.a. circularize the orbit. If you (in a suborbital thing) just meet an orbiting thing, you'll have a relative velocity of however many m/s you were short of orbital velocity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Would this work? I thought you would need a secondary stage in order to circularise the orbit, or else it could only be used to launch things on an escape trajectory. In theory if you did it right you could use a gravity assist from the moon to get to orbit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Just think of it like shooting giant cargo crates up into space, that you later collect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Just think of it like shooting giant cargo crates up into space, that you later collect. Somebody had to pony up the delta-v to make them match orbital velocity though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:In theory if you did it right you could use a gravity assist from the moon to get to orbit. "We didn't want to spend money on propellant to circularize the payload's orbit so we shot it at the moon and had its gravity do the hard work for us. On the upshot, we saved money. On the downside, we can only launch supplies into orbit once a month."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:The Orion gun was an underground structure, in which you would use a nuclear blast to shoot items into orbit. I need this mod for KSP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Somebody had to pony up the delta-v to make them match orbital velocity though. Yeah. Once. You toss up the initial supplies to build a station that can both collect future shipments, as well as use the materials sent to build future ships. Once you get the initial investment down, the Gun makes it incredibly cheap to move tons of materials into orbit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
No you guys have it backward, Project Orion isn't an underground gun. It's a rocket that runs by dropping nuclear bombs out the back, and it's one of the less crazy nuclear rocket proposals. And by "less crazy" I mean "the engineering hurdles are smaller than the political ones" which isn't saying much considering it's a rocket that works by shooting nuclear bombs out the back, but the principle is sound. Plus there's the unavoidable fact that if you want a high-thrust, high-efficiency rocket, the energy shooting out the back is going to be about as much as a nuke every second regardless of whether the source is literally a nuclear bomb every second or something more exotic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
No, I mentioned that ship. There is Project Orion and the Orion Gun. They both utilize nuclear weapons to a productive means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Abyssal Squid posted:No you guys have it backward, Project Orion isn't an underground gun. It's a rocket that runs by dropping nuclear bombs out the back, and it's one of the less crazy nuclear rocket proposals. And by "less crazy" I mean "the engineering hurdles are smaller than the political ones" which isn't saying much considering it's a rocket that works by shooting nuclear bombs out the back, but the principle is sound. Plus there's the unavoidable fact that if you want a high-thrust, high-efficiency rocket, the energy shooting out the back is going to be about as much as a nuke every second regardless of whether the source is literally a nuclear bomb every second or something more exotic. Probably covered in this thread already, but the SLAM project was a terrible idea all around. Lets make a supersonic rocket that sprays out nuclear exhaust all over the ocean FOREVER until called upon to drop a ton of nukes before slamming into the nearest population center when it's payload is spent and permanently ruin the area for the next 50,000 years! Someone who didn't have the best interests of people in mind posted:the use of a nuclear engine in the airframe promised to give the missile staggering and unprecedented low-altitude range, estimated to be roughly 113,000 miles (182,000 km) (over four and a half times the equatorial circumference of the earth). The engine also acted as a secondary weapon for the missile: direct neutron radiation from the virtually unshielded reactor would sicken, injure, and/or kill living things beneath the flight path; the stream of fallout left in its wake would poison enemy territory; and its strategically selected crash site would receive intense radioactive contamination. In addition, the sonic waves given off by its passage would damage ground installations. Minarchist has a new favorite as of 04:19 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Same, plus Grace Hopper. Computer science counts, right? This is the correct answer, and always will be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Yeah. Once. You toss up the initial supplies to build a station that can both collect future shipments, as well as use the materials sent to build future ships. But the crates arrive with a significant velocity relative to the station. To be usable they need to be velocity-matched with the user, which costs fuel. Either launched with the crate (so you're firing small rockets with the gun), or contributed by the station. Still a lot cheaper than a pure rocket launch of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Probably covered in this thread already, but the SLAM project was a terrible idea all around. Lets make a supersonic rocket that sprays out nuclear exhaust all over the ocean FOREVER until called upon to drop a ton of nukes before slamming into the nearest population center when it's payload is spent and permanently ruin the area for the next 50,000 years! Well yeah, but that was explictally a weapon, while the Orion Projects were finding constructive uses. I still say we should build an Orion gun 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:I still say we should build an Orion gun Didn't they try something like that with a nuke at the bottom of a shaft and record the oversized manhole plugging it being blasted off? Even with the fastest camera they had they got a single blurry frame of it being blasted into the air at god knows how fast before it was completely vaporized via friction with the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Firing a suborbital payload to meet up with a station isn't going to do jack poo poo for you, because you still need to bring those payloads up to orbital velocity for the station to "catch" them- that is, unless your definition of "catch" is "hypervelocity impact". Remember that the difference between reaching orbital altitude and reaching an actual orbit is about 7.5 km/s of sideways velocity. In addition, it's one of the basic principles of orbital mechanics that a single impulse from the ground can never put anything into a stable orbit- you can never change where you are, you can only change where you will be. As such, unless you provide at least one extra impulse or circularization burn, your initial "orbit" is always going to intersect the point at which you launched from. Think of Newton's cannonball- no matter how fast you fire it, the projectile is always going to come back around and slam into the back of the cannon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
I unno man. Go look it up. They were pretty close to building one, and I'd trust Carl Sagon over a whole pile of other people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:48
|
|