Where, oh where has my 90ecb0 gone? Where, oh where can he be?

>>6104
Awesome!

>>6080
Xplane is REALLY good. I love how it models fluid dynamics. I fucking want to fly the Piaggio Avanti P180 so bad. They're fucking beautiful

>>6107
We have a couple that fly over regularly here: a really beautiful aircraft, but it sounds really odd going over thanks to the pusher props.

Those cogs don't work. Why do you have to be such a faggot and upload a picture of cogs not working?

Other sources I've found so far:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806

So far, nothing suggests that this would be a hoax. Therefore, I'm taking it as "very likely true". And the point isn't to establish whether or not it's true right now, that will be found out when this hits the big news tomorrow. However, you heard it first on 7chan!

And yes, the hacking was indeed probably done by climate change opponents, and apparently with good reason too. It doesn't really matter, as long as this shits' legit. Also, I'm pretty damn certain they chose to hack the site now, under the shadow of the Copenhagen conference. That doesn't matter either.

All that matters is the truth value of this discovery. For one, the archive is 64mbs big. There's no way the hackers could have spoofed it under two days.

And yes, you're right of course. We'll have to wait and see how this will play out. Not like we can do anything anyway. But it doesn't hurt to speculate, at least for the fun of it. I mean seriously, if this is true, it's the biggest scientific hoax ever played on mankind!

>> 4. My approach has always been, and will always be, "wait and see".
I agree.

>> But it doesn't hurt to speculate, at least for the fun of it.
Speculation isn't really my forte. I'll just hang back and keep this from turning into a political troll fest.

>>6031
Hey I can see my house from here!

>>6012

not only do I think about it, I've got my private pilot's license. When you say airborne, you mean expirience flight from a perspective other than that of every other dumbfuck on a delta flight? You want a more personal experience with flight, but like most of us you aren't loaded.

I would recomend going to your local airport and seeing if any FBOs or flight schools offer lessons. Usually they will offer discovery flights that are slightly discounted (just enough excitement to get you hooked on flying).

Another alternative would be to try hang gliding. It is much cheaper than most powered flight. It's also supposedly amazingly fun, but I have never personally gone, just some close friends. I'll check this thread later. If you have any more questions, or if I didn't answer yours, ask again.

>>6095
You should also note that going through a small town FBO is a shit load cheaper than one at a larger airport. I just got my private license and will start working on my IFR Rating very soon.

The cheapest route to be a pilot, if you're only interested in getting yourself airborne, is probably a Sport license.

You do have quite a few limitations as a sport pilot:

No more than one passenger
Daytime flight only
No flight above 2,000 feet AGL or 10,000 MSL (which ever is higher)
And unless you've received instruction on how to work radio equipment, no flight into class A, B, C, or D airspaces. I do have my doubts about Remos G3's even making it up that high.

Getting a proper license is more than worth it. I'd recommend saying to hell with Sport and get a Private. It's a pain in the ass finding an airplane small enough to qualify as an LSA. I do believe that stock 150/152's count, however and Cessna's new 162 Skycatcher does. But, that's over a 100,000 dollar investment.

You'd be better off getting a private and cashing in on some of the awesome deals you'll find on Piper Cherokees.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

EAT ALL WHO OPPOSE

ebay

>>6047
Generate Bitcoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/) with your computing cluster using your landlord's electricity or solar panels then sell your virtual currency.

relevant info, sans billions in Ares I development and redundant launch pads/crews

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html

I'm not sure the extra 2.5 tons is worth just the development cost, let alone the additional 100+ million per flight over the cost of a Delta IV Heavy predicted in some circles (without factoring in ballooning cost overruns to which NASA is prone).

Haven't the French been using the Ares rocket since the beginning of their space program?

>>6097
Ariane

So I went to ULA and SpaceX to get some more current numbers. Guess what.. NASA is spending billions on an under performing rocket:

Delta IV Heavy (proven)
22560 kg to LEO

Ares 1 (still in design phase)
25600 kg to LEO

Atlas V HLV (proven)
29420 kg to LEO

Falcon 9 (not yet launched)

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

only if we can put the people with AIDS up there too.

>>6081
Someone, who doesn't know about SF6 as a greenhouse gas, who doesn't know about exponential growth of humanity's total usable energy supply, who doesn't know about the percentage of energy used in agriculture, shouldn't be on /sci/.

lol @ this particular thread turning into a serious debate

I lol'd. Chemistry jokes are so fun.

That said, sage for nothing constructive.

so, wats a polar bear?!

a bear that dissolves in water

>>6099
What about a molar tooth?

see thread >>5471

The space-shuttles are going to start falling apart if we don't retire them soon, so even if we were sticking with the shuttle design we'd just have to build more of them.

The space shuttle was a ridiculous compromise design with Air-force cold-war mission requirements that ended up never being used, but still reduced the performance of the design overall.

The Ares is a NASA specific design that utilizes advances in material science that have been made since the 80's when we were building the shuttles. It does not suffer the same design goal compromises and should be better for it.

The Ares I has a 25 tonne launch payload, whereas the shuttle had about 24. The Ares IV would have a 41 tonne payload, and the V would have a 188 tonne payload.

There are other advantages, it should be cheaper per launch (helping to bring cost-to-orbit down for cargo), less prone to spontaneously exploding during reentry and so on.