Don't agree -w/all this cynicism... (Did I get a programmer's joke to work?)
Your fastest open-cycle resource usage is water. If you can recycle your water, you've got much slower mass-growth per unit of time in free flight. This could make the difference between 8 hour spacewalk capabilities and 8 day spacewalks.
Things break. Moving things break much more frequently. In space, where any error can easily be fatal, you generally want to keep things as simple as possible to complete the task at hand. As well, when things break you want them to be as easy to repair as possible. Complexity should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, or in cases where the benefit provided is tremendous. Extremely lengthy spacewalks won't happen for numerous reasons (oxygen, battery, exhaustion, radiation, and so on) so that's not really even a desirable goal.
> Extremely lengthy spacewalks won't happen for numerous reasons (oxygen, battery, exhaustion, radiation, and so on) so that's not really even a desirable goal.
You're not thinking creatively enough. When life support fails and astronauts have to live in their suits for extended periods of time, what is the difference between an extended spacewalk and having to live in your suit for a while?
Well I think there's a couple of issues here. The first is that what you're describing probably could not happen because of some technical reasons. There are generally two types of life support failures. The first is a very slow leak. The ISS, for instance, has had a number of these, and will deal with even more as the station continues to age and deteriorate. Air slowly leaks out, or perhaps your scrubber fails and CO2 levels slowly build up. In these situations you already naturally have many days to solve it.
The other is the catastrophic failure, like a major hull breach. In that case, space stations, bases, and submarines are all designed in modules. You cut off the damaged area and move on with repair. If you happen to be in that damaged area, you're dead. These suits are massive, difficult to get into or out of (requiring multiple people), and also require extensive prep/charging/loading to use. As they become more complex, this all just becomes even more true. In this catastrophic failure scenario, the astronaut would be unconscious in seconds and dead shortly thereafter. It's not like you can just hop into a suit, and heck - even if you could you again would not need to be in it for days.
The other more general issue is that you're adding complexity to try (and probably fail) to solve extremely obscure problems. So the net result is an increased chance of running into an issue. We want to be going the other direction unless there's a very good reason not to. Of course avoiding single point of failures is one of those "very good reasons" but I don't see any single point of failure that this would eliminate.
I've wanted to do this myself... Tho as both an armchair engineer and an armchair programmer. If I'd gotten through engineering in university, (and studied programming language design) this would be an utterly tempting idea for me to try. I must have come back to thinking about doing this ten times in the last fifteen years or so. Off the top of my head, scientific models also sound like they might fit with constraint modelling, tho I might be far too superficial in my understanding of both subjects there.
Pegasus (company's first try overall), Antares, all of the Minotaurs, Atlas 3 and 5 might count as new... Epsilon, H-2 (new?), Vega, Ariane 1, 3 & 4... And the Ariane 1 is both totally new on a systems level and an institution's first attempt at building one. Long March 5, 6 & 7.
Of the investor-backed launch startups, I think it's either no company got it first try... or Orbital Sciences counts as making it first try with Pegasus. Not sure if they count as an investor backed startup.
You could probably get even better walk-able integration by connecting together multiple floors worth of hallways, one above the other. That could approach a 3D city a little bit more.
Isn't it rather precedented to do this? In most readings (that I've seen, anecdotally) of Timothy McVeigh's writings, or Hitler's Mein Kamph, people read these works specifically in the framing of a path to the atrocities, rather than in erstwhile debate of normative claims.
Twitter has a mostly negative ROI for me; I wind up having mild panic attacks both when I visit it, and when I'm reminded of it in the rest of my day.
Almost any reminder that people are having conversations there (especially politics / social commentary)... or forming thought about the world there, makes me fear humanity.
Basically I just keep it around since some (like here on HN) think that it's valuable to prove you exist using an established account.
Speaking of which, how learnable is Elm without any HTML familiarity? I more or less gave up on learning it once the (previous) Elm book started piecing together HTML tags in Elm syntax...
It's not any more difficult than writing the markup in any other language or library, but if you're making websites then you're going to need to know how to use HTML.
(Apologies if this is too much a personal anecdote for HN)
Honestly, this is one of the indicators that forces my distrust of the modern family of social discourse. My own suspicions have a specific conversation in 2012 spooking a few hundred people (online), who lashed out with such odd phrasing that it spread contagiously to whoever they met... And formed the chimera movement we see now.
...I might outright have an alternate history of the entire '10s "Culture War". Or I might have gone paranoid. Of course I can't prove any of it. I'd love an answer to your first question myself.
Similar issue applies on Windows with Visual Studio's C# compiler; Tho in that case it's a terminal with a non-default starting script that adds the C# compiler, so default and that non-default terminal point CSI or CSC at different languages.
Sounds like the errors I got installing spacemacs. I think... I forced it to work by changing the access permissions on a folder that spacemacs itself had created.
Your fastest open-cycle resource usage is water. If you can recycle your water, you've got much slower mass-growth per unit of time in free flight. This could make the difference between 8 hour spacewalk capabilities and 8 day spacewalks.