No, when it tumbles, it does it around its centre of mass. You'd have to get a craft that has empty area inside.
If you know Elite, it has space stations where you dock by going inside, while matching station's rotation. That's only in one axis (and note the hangar goes through the axis of rotation, i.e. centre of mass). To add rotation around another axis would make the task impossible.
Only if it is only spinning along one axis. Very likely to be spinning on multiple axis. That said, with enough money and effort I'm sure we could figure something out, like shooting it strategically with small projectiles to slow the spin, etc.
Anything "spinning among multiple axes" is just spinning around a single compound axis? There's no reason for a spacecraft to limit itself to any earthbound reference frame when it comes to matching frame with an incoming body from outer space.
In three dimensions, the rotation around one axis can affect the distribution of mass around other axes of rotation. That change in the moment of intertia causes acceleration, which can result in chaotic motion even without the addition of any outside forces.
Reminds me of the tumbling T-handle. A small tool is spun up in one axis, and due to some interesting physics, ends up flipping over on another axis every few seconds.
It's about angular momentum and happens whenever the axis of rotation differs - even slightly - from the semi-major axis. Interaction with a fluid is not necessary.
You can demonstrate it at home with your smartphone (or, more canonically, a tennis racket), and see for yourself that the tumbling happens much too quickly to be explained by whatever force the air is imparting.
What do you mean by "other axes of rotation"? As long as the object is rigid and not acted upon by external forces, its axis should never change, since both the direction and magnitude of angular momentum are conserved.
Wikipedia talks of "chaotic rotation" of astronomical objects, but only over long timescales due to gravitational interactions and thermal effects. On short timescales, its axis shouldn't change much at all, unless you bump into it and apply an off-axis torque.
Alright, that makes more sense, the trick is that the (conserved) angular momentum vector need not be parallel with the angular velocity vector, the simplest example being torque-free precession [0]. It doesn't help that most examples of non-constant angular velocity have external forces in the mix to confuse the reader.
Unless acted on by an external force, all rigid objects only rotate about a single axis, do they not? That axis just might not be aligned with any useful parts you'd want to grab on to.
Does it really work this way? If the craft is rotating along any other axis than its direction of travel, wouldn't the matching craft have to be revolving around it, not just rotating?
GNU has a helpful chart where they clearly show that there is a sliver of "nonfree open source" licenses that are available [0].
> The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: we know of only a few cases of source code that is open source but not free.
I was able to find one example, the NASA Open Source Agreement, which is accepted by the OSI [1] but rejected by the FSF [2]:
> The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this.
Guarantee that all "nonfree open source" is different readings. Take the NASA case. If youu read it as strictly as Stallman does then it violates the OSD also. The people at OSI at the time it was submitted read it more like a lawyer and decided it was compliant. Possibly today's OSI would disagree. Possibly tomorrow's FSF would agree. It's not a difference between free software and open source but a difference between how two sets of humans interpreted the text of the license.
Eh, OSD 3 just says that derived works must be possible, it doesn't say that you must be able to incorporate third party source code into the derived work. Meanwhile the FSF's definition explicitly calls out this freedom as an essential component of Freedom 1:
> One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module—for instance, if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add—then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
The best option I'm aware of is used by a similar (but less advanced) python library called rayopt, it imports from the free version of zemax. https://github.com/quartiq/rayopt
New companies with immature systems, old companies hiring young developers doing side stuff off in their own world, bad default configurations etc
Most importantly there's a large amount of highly incentivized people probing constantly at mass scale. These days it's very easy to scan the internet (github, IPs, domains, etc) for information and "bad S3 configuration" detection is just a script anyone can use. No advanced programming skills required.
S3 (and most of AWS) is terribly designed, so you end up googling for access policies that likely work when you are trying to get a new project off the ground. That policy may not be right for prod in the future.
Actually, compare everything they have to native elements. If the project can afford it (in terms of bundle size, etc — it's fine for intranet), I don't even bother with native controls anymore.
I'm on a sub-optimal connection, so the Ant Design one took me about a minute to be responsive, while the native one worked in seconds.
I also am confused by this Ant demo page. Is every single date item supposed to be selected in a different element?
In this comparison, I vastly preferred the native date picker over the Ant ones. But I am probably misunderstanding the demo page. Or maybe it's just giving you "too many" options? I just need to pick a date and this seems like overkill, at best.
I really like my native pickers and UI compared to those examples. I can start with the fact that those are not usable on iOS 18, and they took almost a minute to load.
Right, what we need is some amount of physicality, not photorealism. We need to be able to guess the functionality just by looking at something, as opposed to clicking on everything in sight in case there is some hidden interactivity behind it.
Most people who voted for Brexit were mostly concerned about free movement of people, not goods. I doubt a free trade agreement would upset them too much.
If the EU would accept a FTA without free movement of people is another matter.
> If the EU would accept a FTA without free movement of people is another matter.
Absolutely not. This was made clear repeatedly. What became clear in the UK was that we'd rather lose market access in order to appease people with an irrational hatred of our fellow Europeans.
If people think trade and movement boundaries are good, why don't we have internal ones? Why should Mancunians be allowed to take up scarce housing in London?
EU: "The free movement of goods is one of the four fundamental economic freedoms laid down in the EU founding treaties, the other three being the free movement of capital, services and people."
The EU would welcome the UK being closer aligned to the EU, trade-wise. But the UK cannot be in the single market without all four freedoms. Which the UK still rules out.
