Slashdot Mirror

Last I heard they'd only use 486s. But this was in 2000.

No, not 486s. The CPUs in the 5 shuttle computers are AP-101S, which are upgrades from the AP-101B. iirc, the upgrades were circa 1991.

This CPU has its lineage in IBM 360 mainframes. See http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computer s/Ch4-3.html or http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shut ref/orbiter/avionics/dps/gpc.html or even

I agree with the other guy.

Here's a deeper, fuller explanation. Basically, our next job is to be able to grow plants in space.

Actually, I think discarding bodies entirely is even better, but nobody will go for that today; We may have to wait 40 years before a society that can defend itself decides that that is not a controversial way to go, and has the technology to do it.

Personally, I think we should go for that as quickly as possible. NASA should study cybernetics, not how to make spaceships with showers and treadmills in them.

Oh, wait- they are..!

Composites are strong, but composites are very flexible. They don't lend themselves well to control wires although cabling is acceptable if you have slack (which adds weight)... but movement is never a good thing

And, what about the US? V-2 rockets. German adaptation of the Dutch schnorkel? US seizure of German submarines because Germany lost the war. There's a LOT of shit (technology) THIS country acquired merely through the advantage of having "won" the war. Moreover, the US is NOT innocent of industrial espionage.

It is rather funny that you fail to mention the work of American Robert H. Goddard, from whom the designers of the V-2 obtained important ideas. As a NASA web site states:
Goddard's work largely anticipated in technical detail the later German V-2 missiles, including gyroscopic control, steering by means of vanes in the jet stream of the rocket motor, gimbalsteering, power-driven fuel pumps and other devices. His rocket flight in 1929 carried the first scientific payload, a barometer, and a camera. Goddard developed and demonstrated the basic idea of the "bazooka" two days before the Armistice in 1918 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. His launching platform was a music rack. Dr. Clarence N. Hickman, a young Ph.D. from Clark University, worked with Goddard in 1918 provided continuity to the research that produced the World War II bazooka. In World War II, Goddard again offered his services and was assigned by the U.S. Navy to the development of practical jet assisted takeoff (JATO) and liquid propellant rocket motors capable of variable thrust. In both areas, he was successful. He died on August 10,1945, four days after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan.
Goddard was the first scientist who not only realized the potentialities of missiles and space flight but also contributed directly in bringing them to practical realization. This rare talent in both creative science and practical engineering places Goddard well above the opposite numbers among the European rocket pioneers. The dedicated labors of this modest man went largely unrecognized in the United States until the dawn of what is now called the "space age." High honors and wide acclaim, belated but richly deserved, now come to the name of Robert H. Goddard.
NASA

Do you trust that the Flash plugin is safe to use?

Who installs software before knowing what it does?

Can you know for sure what's inside the plugin?

Too late. The Empire has already sent two patrol droids to root out the rebels.

696.318 mph @ 70,000 ft = Mach 1.054.

Your number above corresponds to sea level.

(Yes, I am bored too :p)

I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm talking about the solar wind. And saying that there would be no impact to life without the magnetic field, even on orders of a few years, is pretty close to the kind of logic Bush uses to say there is no global warming.

I don't know how common it is to use audio cues for data presentation, but there's an interesting example of it here. (Cassini/Huygens probe's descent to Titan.)

This assumes that widespread use of fossil fuels is the primary cause and driving force behind global warming.

That is unlikely, considering that the current global warming trend started over 10,000 years ago.

Also, there are powerful positive feedback loops (e.g., the millions of square miles of thawing/decomposing tundra, and the rising levels of global humidity) that will shortly eclipse the carbon emissions of humankind.

It seems likely that these powerful positive feedback loops are responsible for the sharp swings between hothouse and icehouse climates -- the most we have done is to have shifted the knee of the curve by a tiny amount, and as these powerful natural mechanisms eclipse civilization as a source of greenhouse gases, it will not matter whether we produce carbon emissions or not -- we're too small a contributor in the larger scheme of things.

Global warming will persist in the absence of human civilization -- as it has repeatedly done in the planet's past -- and human civilization will not die out as oil is used up, we have plenty of coal, and nuclear power as well. There are lots of alternatives available to power our civlization (such as it is).

Great thoughts! I totally agree with you! However, the only problem is this station is huge! In fact, according to the NASA Mission Page it's 404,069 pounds with a width Across Solar Arrays of 240 feet. It's 146 feet long from Destiny Lab to Zvezda; 171 feet with a Progress docked and 90 feet high!

Whilst if you take a peek at the Shuttle info page you'll find that the cargo bay is 60 ft long, 15 ft in diameter. so there's almost no way you could get that station anywhere inside the orbiter. The only possible way to get it down, is the same way we got it up there in the first place. Which means dismantling it ! I found a nice array of photos showing the process here.

I find the station has cost billions already and is a decade behind schedule. Here's a summary:
INITIAL DESIGN PAPERWORK -- $10 billion
HARDWARE -- $25 billion
SHUTTLE SERVICING COSTS -- $20 billion
MAINTENANCE -- $41 billion
YEAR 2001 COST OVERRUN (disclosed immediately AFTER the presidential election of 2000): $5 billion.

So, multiply this by two and you get the cost of bringing it down. Are you a tax payer? If so, I'm guessing you don't want to pay that :). Hope this clears the question of why they let sattelites burn up there too ... In case it doesn't, it costs around 2000 USD per pound to send a sattelite to space. It costs twice as much to recover it (sending an empty shuttle, a space walk, operating the hand, bringing it down) and we're taking a serious risk here, I mean, sending it up requires no humans, so if something goes wrong, we just blew up a few millions, but hey, if a shuttle explodes -- all hell breaks lose. So I say, leave them to burn out!

Great thoughts! I totally agree with you! However, the only problem is this station is huge! In fact, according to the NASA Mission Page it's 404,069 pounds with a width Across Solar Arrays of 240 feet. It's 146 feet long from Destiny Lab to Zvezda; 171 feet with a Progress docked and 90 feet high!

Whilst if you take a peek at the Shuttle info page you'll find that the cargo bay is 60 ft long, 15 ft in diameter. so there's almost no way you could get that station anywhere inside the orbiter. The only possible way to get it down, is the same way we got it up there in the first place. Which means dismantling it ! I found a nice array of photos showing the process here.

I find the station has cost billions already and is a decade behind schedule. Here's a summary:
INITIAL DESIGN PAPERWORK -- $10 billion
HARDWARE -- $25 billion
SHUTTLE SERVICING COSTS -- $20 billion
MAINTENANCE -- $41 billion
YEAR 2001 COST OVERRUN (disclosed immediately AFTER the presidential election of 2000): $5 billion.

So, multiply this by two and you get the cost of bringing it down. Are you a tax payer? If so, I'm guessing you don't want to pay that :). Hope this clears the question of why they let sattelites burn up there too ... In case it doesn't, it costs around 2000 USD per pound to send a sattelite to space. It costs twice as much to recover it (sending an empty shuttle, a space walk, operating the hand, bringing it down) and we're taking a serious risk here, I mean, sending it up requires no humans, so if something goes wrong, we just blew up a few millions, but hey, if a shuttle explodes -- all hell breaks lose. So I say, leave them to burn out!

• 8-bit: Nintendo NES (1985, $200/351) > Sega Master System (1986, $200/345) > Atari 7800 (1986, $140/241)
• 16-bit: NEC TurboGrafx 16 (1987, $190/316, only big in Japan) > Sega Genesis (1988, $190/303) > Nintendo SNES (1990, $200/289)
• mid-90s: Sony Playstation (1994, $300/382) > Sega Saturn (1995, $400/496) >= Nintendo 64 (1996, $200/241)
  mid-90s Flops: Laseractive (1993, $970/1268), 3DO (1993, $700/915), Atari Jaguar (1993, $250/327, company went under)
• y2k: Sony Playstation 2 (2000, $300/329) = MS Xbox (2001, $300/320) > Nintendo GameCube (2001, $200/213) > Sega Dreamcast (1998, $200/232)
• mid-00s: MS Xbox (2005, $300+), Sony Playstation 3 (2006, $500+), Nintendo Wii (2006, $200?)

"Order of magnitude" is a base ten factor. Silly humans. ;)

A miss is as good as a mile. Or 5 million miles.

Intresting.. they have a good simulation here http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?sstr=73P-BD looks like a near miss to me.. yes it is close but it is a miss and that is all that counts

Here's some mirrored copies

http://www.mars.asu.edu/~gorelick/Descent_On_Titan _1.avi
http://www.mars.asu.edu/~gorelick/Huygens_Movie.mp eg

And another version with more information
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/PIA08117. mov

I didn't watch the >200MB file, but there's smaller movie available at the JPL website. I think that file was around 11MB or something. It was beautiful. There's a sort of comical sense about it--they're not kidding when they call it the movie with bells and whistles.

There's another movie with narration that I also liked, that's around 15MB. This movie is more like a narrated tour of the descent of Huygens; the other 11MB movie is more like a view of the descent with additional info about sensor status and things.

They're both definitely worth the watch, though.

I didn't watch the >200MB file, but there's smaller movie available at the JPL website. I think that file was around 11MB or something. It was beautiful. There's a sort of comical sense about it--they're not kidding when they call it the movie with bells and whistles.

There's another movie with narration that I also liked, that's around 15MB. This movie is more like a narrated tour of the descent of Huygens; the other 11MB movie is more like a view of the descent with additional info about sensor status and things.

They're both definitely worth the watch, though.

We had working hardsuit designs in the 1960s. I've seen one on display at some museum someplace, think it was the SJ Technology museum. We also regularly use them in diving. Obviously a whole different set of problems, but you can dive to 2,000 feet in the one linked above...

There are lots of images and videos with detailed descriptions over at the ESA site - similarly there's stuff over at the JPL website.

It's all real imaging data, carefully stitched together and colorised (using real data again) - it's probably about as good results as they can possibly get. Titan's gone from being a strange, difficult-to-imagine world to being somewhere almost homely (near-Earth-like rolling hills and eroded valleys) - all thanks to this one little space probe...

Horror movies are not a good source for scientific information.
Have a look at this page about vacuum exposure.

http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/feather.avi
in the last frame you can clearly see there is enough room between the feather and the ground to insert your brain!

My post was based on these comments by Dave Scott.

[Scott - "It was probably due to the suit fit. I don't know how much time other people spent, but I spent a fair amount of time getting suits fitted, from early days. I was going to do an EVA on Gemini VIII. I spent a lot of time on the Gemini suit, getting it fitted, because one of the problems that Ed White had (on Gemini IV) was mobility. So they felt that if you had a proper fit, then you had better mobility. So I spent a lot of time with the suit guys, and they spent a lot of time with me. And I had good mobility. And that's why, today, when you look at the suits, they're trying to build with all these joints and I think they're missing the point. I think if you take this design and fit it properly, it's fine. I mean, you don't really need to bend over much, but I don't remember any conscious problem in bending over. Certainly it wasn't effortless but, on the other hand, it didn't require a big deal. You want to bend over, you go bend over. But I have to give it to the suit guys; they fit me very well. They did a good job tailoring the suit, which probably costs a lot less than building a suit with twenty joints, or whatever they're trying to do. (Guffaws)"]

There is a lot of comment in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal about future planetary space suits. Comments from the moon walkers tend to be that engineers today are trying to solve the wrong problems. People assume that the apollo suits were not mobile enough, in fact they were, but the joints in suits were a maintenance nightmare. So if a future suit is more complex because of this supposed moblity requirement then it will be harder to keep it working for a month on Mars.

TFA doesn't say how they plan to improve mobility. They are only pressurising this suit to 1 PSI, about a quarter of what is required. I would like to see them work on the PLSS system as well. Lunar suits were limited to seven hours outside, but the tanks in the back pack were filled by high pressure tanks in the LM descent stage. If oxygen is to be extracted from water during the mission a lot of energy will have to be put into pressurising the PLSS tanks (to 1000 PSI, more would be better) while on the surface.

One of the limiting factors in EVA time will be electrical power. Energy is going to be needed to heat the hands and feet while outside. If a way can be found to distribute heat between to torso and the extremities while outside then power won't be needed for this. Perhaps a liquid cooled garment can be used to distribute heat to cold parts of the body.

Its good to see people working on this kind of thing. Its a pity that there aren't going to be any rides to mars in the forseeable future.

Report from NASA (PDF)
Google's HTML version

I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe that he would stumble accross machines with no or default passwords at NASA... I work with a group at NASA AMES on http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ that project, and the security on their machines is almost to the point of rediculousness. The forum software they were running on there was exploited by a 1 day old vulnerability that had no patch released yet a few days ago, the server was offline within 3-5 minutes after exploitation, as soon as it was picked up my NASA Security's IDS system.
From what I've heard from our NASA counterparts the security guys are very serious and regularly make their lives difficult by firewalling off ports other than 80. Remote access ports would NEVER be allowed through the firewall (SSH VNC etc) unless you were logged in through their VPN.

From what I've seen, I doubt this guy did many of the things he talks about.

This isn't bad for a flyover prior to the current eruption: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1549, which should give you a sense of scale. Combine this with some of the images from the links below, and you'll have a much better sense of it. Visiting is of course best.

The model is from an earlier image series by NASA, prior to this building/eruption stage which started last late September/early October. The current fin is actually one of a series, with the first characterized as the whale back as I remember it, with each crumbling eventually, losing elevation, and another fin starting further to the West and South I believe. Details at the excellent USGS site for Helens and the eruption: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Cascades/Curre ntActivity/current_updates.html

Also, the main page: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/Eruption04 /framework.html

Image pages (AMAZING shots, thermal images, etc): http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/Images/MSH 04/framework.html.

There is a far greater likelihood of an asteroid hitting the Earth than this avian birdy flu destroying us.....

People actually survive a lot more than you'd think. Here is a good paper about the Stapp G-force tests of the 60's. They basically strapped people to a rocket-propelled railcar, and then decelerated with other rockets.

The record from the tests was 83g's of deceleration experienced by a Captain Beeding. I think he suffered some temporary blindness and shock, but no permanent harm.

We build ours out of rocks. Remember the old saying: "If you put a big enough engine on it, you can fly anything." It was only a theory until 1981.

The Free Earth Foundation, mainly working on NASA World Wind, is also participating. This 3D globe is somewhat similar to GE, but is very extensible and more science/classroom oriented than just looking at your house, and has a large community backing it.

Programmer time is much more expensive than processor time these days. Therefore, many current programming languages are optimised to save programmer time first. C and C++ were designed in a time when processor cycles were extremely expensive, and therefore are optimised to save time at runtime instead.

As you have seen, java typically gets you results more quickly than C. In this case, since you simply took less time to get to your basic functionality, you could take more time to think about how to code more efficiently, and ended up actually writing faster code in the end.

However, java is not the only modern programming language out there. People have designed several new languages in the past decade. It seems reasonable to assume that some of those people deliberately set out to improve on java. Compared to such languages, java might appear to be very inefficient.

I'll leave it up to you to compare and decide. For instance, here's a comparison for web applications, done at JPL. (YMMV):

While the second law is certainly a fun law, it is the first law of thermodynamics that invalidates gaining more energy than you lose.

No, it isn't.

~Rebecca

Puny little centrifuge. At NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the centrifuge can do 30 Gs with a 5000 lb payload. Here it is swinging an SUV around for no apparent reason:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/ 2003/0212suv.html

Hmmm...
Where is Werhner Von Braun when you need him?

I note this part from the link on Von Braun:
After the Apollo space program, von Braun felt that his vision for future spaceflight was different than NASAs, and he retired in June 1972.

Furthermore, foam loss was experienced long before the switch, including incidents which caused serious damage. Quoting from the above.

F3.27 Foam loss occurred on more than 80 percent of the 79 missions for which imagery was available to confirm or rule out foam loss. F3.28 Thirty percent of all missions lacked sufficient imagery to determine if foam had been lost.

I'm not sure why this is news, I mean, seeing that a simillar robot was planned and partly developed in 2001.

What I also don't understand is, why the heck the satellites use only ultrasound waves for navigation and positioning. Does anybody know, how they know if something is in front of them? Another robot, a wall, a person? It doesn't say anything about any additional sensors does it? Hopefully it has some :-).

I would also include wireless technology on board to allow the robot to talk to the ship and other robots / sattelites. This way it would be easier to get their position and allow the astronouts to monitor it remotely...

And here is the Shuttle page for STS-31 which launched the Hubble.

Here's a mirror too:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060425.html

Don't forget http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html (Some by Hubble) That image archive has a 10 year history (go to Calendar), absolutely stunning! I can't wait for the successor to Hubble, The James Webb Space Telescope... should be up by 2013 http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

Don't forget http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html (Some by Hubble) That image archive has a 10 year history (go to Calendar), absolutely stunning! I can't wait for the successor to Hubble, The James Webb Space Telescope... should be up by 2013 http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

What do you want them to do; mention every contractor who worked on Hubble in every press release, announcement, or mention of hubble?

They certainly aren't trying to hide the fact that Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer, and many other companies worked on Hubble:

A Brief History of the Hubble Space Telescope
The following year, design of the telescope began in earnest, with the award of contracts to the Perkin-Elmer Corporation to construct the mirror and optical assembly and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to construct the spacecraft and its support systems.

NASA history: Hubble Space Telescope:
Page 1, Paragraph 4:
Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Danbury, Connecticut, was chosen to develop the optical system and guidance sensors. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, was selected to produce the protective outer shroud and the spacecraft systems for the telescope, as well as to assemble and test the finished product.

NASA Hubble Team Receives International Academy of Astronautics Award (2004)

LOCKHEED MARTIN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TEAMS RECEIVE NASA HONORS (2005)

A DECADE OF DISCOVERY: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE -- THE DISCOVERIES AND THE PEOPLE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEDIA INVITED TO JOIN IN PUBLIC CELEBRATION OF TEN YEARS OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

Google search for "site:nasa.gov lockheed hubble":
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 from nasa.gov

What do you want them to do; mention every contractor who worked on Hubble in every press release, announcement, or mention of hubble?

They certainly aren't trying to hide the fact that Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer, and many other companies worked on Hubble:

A Brief History of the Hubble Space Telescope
The following year, design of the telescope began in earnest, with the award of contracts to the Perkin-Elmer Corporation to construct the mirror and optical assembly and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to construct the spacecraft and its support systems.

NASA history: Hubble Space Telescope:
Page 1, Paragraph 4:
Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Danbury, Connecticut, was chosen to develop the optical system and guidance sensors. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, was selected to produce the protective outer shroud and the spacecraft systems for the telescope, as well as to assemble and test the finished product.

NASA Hubble Team Receives International Academy of Astronautics Award (2004)

LOCKHEED MARTIN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TEAMS RECEIVE NASA HONORS (2005)

A DECADE OF DISCOVERY: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE -- THE DISCOVERIES AND THE PEOPLE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEDIA INVITED TO JOIN IN PUBLIC CELEBRATION OF TEN YEARS OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

Google search for "site:nasa.gov lockheed hubble":
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 from nasa.gov

What do you want them to do; mention every contractor who worked on Hubble in every press release, announcement, or mention of hubble?

They certainly aren't trying to hide the fact that Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer, and many other companies worked on Hubble:

A Brief History of the Hubble Space Telescope
The following year, design of the telescope began in earnest, with the award of contracts to the Perkin-Elmer Corporation to construct the mirror and optical assembly and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to construct the spacecraft and its support systems.

NASA history: Hubble Space Telescope:
Page 1, Paragraph 4:
Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Danbury, Connecticut, was chosen to develop the optical system and guidance sensors. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, was selected to produce the protective outer shroud and the spacecraft systems for the telescope, as well as to assemble and test the finished product.

NASA Hubble Team Receives International Academy of Astronautics Award (2004)

LOCKHEED MARTIN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TEAMS RECEIVE NASA HONORS (2005)

A DECADE OF DISCOVERY: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE -- THE DISCOVERIES AND THE PEOPLE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEDIA INVITED TO JOIN IN PUBLIC CELEBRATION OF TEN YEARS OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

Google search for "site:nasa.gov lockheed hubble":
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 from nasa.gov

What do you want them to do; mention every contractor who worked on Hubble in every press release, announcement, or mention of hubble?

They certainly aren't trying to hide the fact that Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer, and many other companies worked on Hubble:

A Brief History of the Hubble Space Telescope
The following year, design of the telescope began in earnest, with the award of contracts to the Perkin-Elmer Corporation to construct the mirror and optical assembly and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to construct the spacecraft and its support systems.

NASA history: Hubble Space Telescope:
Page 1, Paragraph 4:
Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Danbury, Connecticut, was chosen to develop the optical system and guidance sensors. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, was selected to produce the protective outer shroud and the spacecraft systems for the telescope, as well as to assemble and test the finished product.

NASA Hubble Team Receives International Academy of Astronautics Award (2004)

LOCKHEED MARTIN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TEAMS RECEIVE NASA HONORS (2005)

A DECADE OF DISCOVERY: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE -- THE DISCOVERIES AND THE PEOPLE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEDIA INVITED TO JOIN IN PUBLIC CELEBRATION OF TEN YEARS OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

Google search for "site:nasa.gov lockheed hubble":
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 from nasa.gov

If you google now for "TRW Hubble" you'll find a whole bunch of articles mentioning that TRW was selected to build JWST, "Hubble replacement", but not too many mentioning that we did actually built the original Hubble.

Stargate et al is nice light comedy in the SF genre, but von Daniken presented as legitimate, well, give me a snarky G'aould any day.

Specifically related to the issues I mentioned: If you are interested in some of the challenges around flatness, you can learn more about dummy fill that must be added to metal layers, by looking at the layman's version or a technical description.

With regard to reflection, you can check out a rather old background article or how anti-reflection layers must be used in modern semiconductor manufacturing to reduce problems.

More specific articles on 3D fabrication can probably be found in recent journals (most likely not available online), or if you're not concerned about reading patents, by reading patents from the USPTO (for reasons of US law which you're probably familiar with, I'm not going to search that and provide you any links). There may also be more by searching for Matrix Semiconductor (which I didn't realize at the time of my first posting has been acquired by SanDisk).

Having said that, there is also 3D packaging, which takes various forms. Semiconductor Cubing (as it's apparently called) can stack lots of semiconductor devices, but note that these are originally fabricated as single layer chips and then they are bonded together to form a larger block.

More recently (and in real production), 3D packaging is being performed through a System in Package (SiP) methodology (you may also see this referred to as a 'chip stack' technology). This is distinct from a multi-chip module (MCM), where the chips are aligned horizontally on the packaging substrate. Today, a SiP is generally a memory module bonded upside down onto a non-memory device (though it can also be used to bond an RF device onto a non-RF device). This form of packaging is receiving attention from SEMATECH as well. Further information from SEMI is also available if you Google for "SEMI Forum: Mapping progress in 3D IC integration".

Beyond that, it's again hard, due to the password protected nature of conference materials and journals... but hopefully that's a good set of links to explore.