Nautical miles, like he said...but, if it were nanometers, from where would you measure it? Nosetip of the fighter? Of the missile? Tail of the missle (launch after impact)? ^_-
Number of organizations that both have enough money to pay for it and would be willing to pay for it: 0.
Sure, maybe if you had the money, then we could do it. But you don't. I don't. No one who believes it is possible does, nor are those who do willing to be convinced just now.
Let me shoot even lower, then: a massive junk shield to guard against solar flares and other orbital junk, for a currently in orbit manned station - the ISS. Just start collecting bits and scraps that pass by, wad 'em into a shield, and deploy it where any new junk that comes along will just add to the shield's mass (and possibly require a bit of extra thrust to the shield's total mass to counter the momentum hit).
And you know what? Even that would be considered far too expensive and impractical by those concerned (NASA and the other ISS owners) to actually pull off.
Economics or legal issues, at least we agree that this wouldn't be easily feasable just now.
Only gets the debris that gets near the ISS. Though it would make a useful ISS-only defense, and you could also make a virtue of making the beam low enough power that, if it misses and goes more than several kilometers from the ISS, it disperses out enough to have no effect.
Though, thinking about it, might this be the excuse for spacecraft to get armed? "Of course I've got a giant freakin' laser on this bird. Gotta shoot down any debris that get too close, don'tcha know. True, I could also fux0r any other ships or sats that I don't like that I happen to get close to - or who get close to me, say if they try to board to enforce whatever law is up here - but in the name of clearin' debris, the laser itself is perfectly legit."
Y'know...that does suggest a possibility. Have some orbital craft go around to the debris, and shoot concentrated bursts of super-cooled air (liquid or solid so the projectile stays reasonably condensed en route to target) at each flake to decelerate it (dropping it into the atmosphere). When it runs low on ammunition, dip into a lower orbit to suck up more air, then rise up into a different orbital position (where, presumably, more debris lurk), chilling the air by shielding it from the sun and letting it radiate away heat. Also use stored air - heated up with energy from solar panels - as the reaction mass to move around. Wouldn't need to move very fast; just needs to be very reliable.
Eventually, probably even today, there should be enough materials in space to justify manufacturing in space instead of sending more stuff up.
Chyeah, right! Let's start with the fact that no one's done any serious development of zero-G menufacturing. (Sure, there's been a few research studies, but right now it's just a lab curio.) Pair that with the fact that any such space manufacturer would necessarily be contracting out, sharing a lot of clients, and totally exposed to all who wish to see the satellite being manufactured (trade secret or national secret violations, anyone?), while (in theory, at least) ground manufacture can be a "private" collaboration hidden from prying eyes until the bird is sealed up and launched.
Which is not to say it will never become a good idea. Just to say that the market will seriously have to change - say, by getting a lot of people living in space for other reasons - before orbital manufacturing of satellites intended to help Earth can become viable...so, right now, it's a non-starter.
That's what venture capital is all about. You see, there are these dudes whose only ambition is to make money. They don't particularly care how they get it (within certain ethical constraints - they don't want to become the next Mafia, for instance). They go around funding these other dudes who have dreams but little money, like the guys who would actually go set up a moonbase. The problem is that these other dudes have to come up with a way for it to pay, and the major one everyone thought of - satellite launches - simply wasn't profitable enough. Only recently have other good paths - like space tourism, or (for when you're not quite orbit-capable) hypersonic cargo delivery - been explored.
"After every mission with the shuttle they spend 1000's of hours checking and replacing the >30k tiles that line the heat shield part of the body."
Let's see _you_ go through the atmosphere at Mach 20+ and hang on to all your parts.
Let's see _you_ manually replace all 30k tiles, or hire someone and guarantee them a profit to do so. Never send a man to do a machine's job, unless you're not worried about stuff like cost-efficiency. Which they aren't - else they wouldn't have this little rule in (almost) all of their contracts saying, "We'll pay whatever it costs, plus a guaranteed percent profit".
It's not just the shuttle, it's the whole attitude towards cost controls (and thus, automation for any reason other than safety) being worthless.
Sorry, wrong. Been there, done that in my EV-1. Piece o' cake. The motor's reaction: "Mountain? What mountain? Feels like level ground to me." (Granted, this was on a road going up a mountain, but still...)
I also drive an EV1 in the SF Bay Area, and my lease is expiring in 6 months, so I have to start looking for another car. According to Saturn, GM has officially sent no word on renewing the leases, which in practice means they won't renew them. They do offer lease assumption programs, for you to take over a lease from someone else, but that only lasts 'til the lease runs out. (And, frankly, given how GM has killed the EV1 - saying they had no customers when they had waiting lists several months long, and simply refusing to manufacture enough to meet demand so they could say they only sold a few thousand without saying they only built a few thousand - makes me think twice about continuing to support them.)
The option I am leaning towards is Toyota's RAV4-EV. Top speed 78 MPH, range 125 miles. It reportedly leases for $477/month, a bit less than an EV-1. Sure, it's an SUV and not a sedan, but there aren't that many options for pure electrics under your criteria (which are similar to my own) if you're just a member of the general public, not managing a fleet of cars or something.
You know I'll be monitoring this topic too, to see what my own options are...
Same thing that happens today to people with photographic memory, only it'll happen to more people. Though, I specifically said "mind" since (at the moment) any implanted data storage that can not directly interface with one's nervous system is treated like merely an exotic disk for these purposes.
IANAL, but at least in California (and, I hear, many other states), the legal precedent is that any IP an employee can carry in his or her mind, that employee may then freely use in any further job regardless of NDAs or the like (which thus become unenforceable in this regard). Patents, being federal law, would trump this, but that's about it.
The irony, of course, being that the wireless networks might actually work better to give said minorities a voice, since they require even less technical expertise to operate and have a wider ('Net-wide) reach...
Which is why I mentioned the money issue. One could very easily argue that, if the FCC is to impose this mandate, it should defray the upgrade costs for the poorer (or maybe just non-profit) licensed broadcasters so as to avoid this effect. It's not an argument that derails the switch to analog (unless, of course, there's simply no money to pay for the upgrade - which is only true from a certain political point of view).
Like it or not, the FCC does have legal jurisdiction over the airwaves, on the theory that they are a limited resource. Said theory is increasingly becoming untrue as better and better use is made of the airwaves, but it is true that there can only be one station broadcasting on the frequency that matches channel 40 (for example) in a given area. Which means the FCC has every right to demand that these broadcasters make better use of said airwaves - say, by switching to digital broadcasting. One can debate the money (whether the FCC should pay for new broadcast equipment, say), but the broadcasters were told quite some time ago that this was going to happen. Mass disobedience of the law is no reason not to enforce it. (It may indicate something is wrong with the law - see the civil rights protests - but that does not appear to be the case here.)
Of course it is. I'm only worried about my own survival 'til we can haul ass (and other body parts) off this rock. Then I can tell whoever's chucking these to stop missing.;)
Speaking as one who uses wireless, and is a ham (KG6LGI)...
The main problem with this paper, IMO, is that it proposes that regulators should care at all about the content of the message, and not just the context. That is, that it should matter at all whether someone's broadcasting political messages, art produced independent of any major corporate or government resources, public domain (and uncopyrightable) technical information that might change how people use certain products, or just simple personal messages (say, chatting with one's family or loved ones) broadcasted over free airspace because the for-pay communications providers went out of service or were just too expensive. (Of course, from the viewpoint of certain businesses - i.e., that rich people have a natural right to make more money by any means they desire - allowing just anyone to communicate, or even just anyone who can get a ham radio license - which is easy and cheap if you have even as much brains as a typical/. troll - is as severe a violation of your rights as, say, arresting you for murder just because you're black, even if you're not actually black but some photo of you came out discolored so some functionary thought it looked black and put out a warrant.)
Currently, regulation of the airwaves is limited to technical matters because those who set up the system knew that regulation would be abused to regulate content improperly, and they wished to limit said abuse. Unlimited communication will produce more crap, but also more gems: that old "90% of everything is crap" applies to the sheer volume, and history shows that regulation more often than not cuts out both crap and the quality content, even if it was intended only to limit the crap. (Which means it may be defensible when the mere existence of the worst crap is detrimental - which almost never happens in reality, because people can just ignore said worst crap, thus it does no harm merely by existing. Unless you're one of the monied elite, who believes that the mere existence of this crap makes you lose face, a belief that is usually incorrect but is widespread nonetheless.)
That most people don't care about the technical matters that regulation is restricted to, and just want to talk, is a good thing. But he makes this into the "problem" that he proposes to solve. The freest government is no government, i.e. anarchy - and in this specific case of the content of radio communications, as opposed to making sure the communications do not interfere with each other, anarchy actually works.
All that said, it's impressive that anyone that high up in the government would actually bounce something off the public like this (or even have a/. account, for that matter). Even though I heavily disagree with what he has to say, I would like to applaud Mr. Galbi for saying it in this forum.
Slashdot Mirror
Nautical miles, like he said...but, if it were nanometers, from where would you measure it? Nosetip of the fighter? Of the missile? Tail of the missle (launch after impact)? ^_-
What about someone who thinks that all Republicans and Democrats are inherently evil?
"Congratulations, gentlemen. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government service."
"Microsoft Government. How do you want to be misrepresented today?"
Show me numbers, dammit!
Number of organizations that both have enough money to pay for it and would be willing to pay for it: 0.
Sure, maybe if you had the money, then we could do it. But you don't. I don't. No one who believes it is possible does, nor are those who do willing to be convinced just now.
Let me shoot even lower, then: a massive junk shield to guard against solar flares and other orbital junk, for a currently in orbit manned station - the ISS. Just start collecting bits and scraps that pass by, wad 'em into a shield, and deploy it where any new junk that comes along will just add to the shield's mass (and possibly require a bit of extra thrust to the shield's total mass to counter the momentum hit).
And you know what? Even that would be considered far too expensive and impractical by those concerned (NASA and the other ISS owners) to actually pull off.
Economics or legal issues, at least we agree that this wouldn't be easily feasable just now.
Only gets the debris that gets near the ISS. Though it would make a useful ISS-only defense, and you could also make a virtue of making the beam low enough power that, if it misses and goes more than several kilometers from the ISS, it disperses out enough to have no effect.
Though, thinking about it, might this be the excuse for spacecraft to get armed? "Of course I've got a giant freakin' laser on this bird. Gotta shoot down any debris that get too close, don'tcha know. True, I could also fux0r any other ships or sats that I don't like that I happen to get close to - or who get close to me, say if they try to board to enforce whatever law is up here - but in the name of clearin' debris, the laser itself is perfectly legit."
Y'know...that does suggest a possibility. Have some orbital craft go around to the debris, and shoot concentrated bursts of super-cooled air (liquid or solid so the projectile stays reasonably condensed en route to target) at each flake to decelerate it (dropping it into the atmosphere). When it runs low on ammunition, dip into a lower orbit to suck up more air, then rise up into a different orbital position (where, presumably, more debris lurk), chilling the air by shielding it from the sun and letting it radiate away heat. Also use stored air - heated up with energy from solar panels - as the reaction mass to move around. Wouldn't need to move very fast; just needs to be very reliable.
"She's gone from suck to blow" indeed. ^_-
Eventually, probably even today, there should be enough materials in space to justify manufacturing in space instead of sending more stuff up.
Chyeah, right! Let's start with the fact that no one's done any serious development of zero-G menufacturing. (Sure, there's been a few research studies, but right now it's just a lab curio.) Pair that with the fact that any such space manufacturer would necessarily be contracting out, sharing a lot of clients, and totally exposed to all who wish to see the satellite being manufactured (trade secret or national secret violations, anyone?), while (in theory, at least) ground manufacture can be a "private" collaboration hidden from prying eyes until the bird is sealed up and launched.
Which is not to say it will never become a good idea. Just to say that the market will seriously have to change - say, by getting a lot of people living in space for other reasons - before orbital manufacturing of satellites intended to help Earth can become viable...so, right now, it's a non-starter.
Now, now. I didn't say all venture capitalists had ethical constraints, just that there are VCs with ethical constraints. ;)
That's what venture capital is all about. You see, there are these dudes whose only ambition is to make money. They don't particularly care how they get it (within certain ethical constraints - they don't want to become the next Mafia, for instance). They go around funding these other dudes who have dreams but little money, like the guys who would actually go set up a moonbase. The problem is that these other dudes have to come up with a way for it to pay, and the major one everyone thought of - satellite launches - simply wasn't profitable enough. Only recently have other good paths - like space tourism, or (for when you're not quite orbit-capable) hypersonic cargo delivery - been explored.
"After every mission with the shuttle they spend 1000's of hours checking and replacing the >30k tiles that line the heat shield part of the body."
Let's see _you_ go through the atmosphere at Mach 20+ and hang on to all your parts.
Let's see _you_ manually replace all 30k tiles, or hire someone and guarantee them a profit to do so. Never send a man to do a machine's job, unless you're not worried about stuff like cost-efficiency. Which they aren't - else they wouldn't have this little rule in (almost) all of their contracts saying, "We'll pay whatever it costs, plus a guaranteed percent profit".
It's not just the shuttle, it's the whole attitude towards cost controls (and thus, automation for any reason other than safety) being worthless.
I didn't notice much extra energy consumption when doing that in my EV-1, but whatever...
It doesn't use the EV-1's paddle system. Can't. EV-1 is inductive charging, RAV4-EV is conductive.
it's hard to climb mountains in a pure EV
Sorry, wrong. Been there, done that in my EV-1. Piece o' cake. The motor's reaction: "Mountain? What mountain? Feels like level ground to me." (Granted, this was on a road going up a mountain, but still...)
I also drive an EV1 in the SF Bay Area, and my lease is expiring in 6 months, so I have to start looking for another car. According to Saturn, GM has officially sent no word on renewing the leases, which in practice means they won't renew them. They do offer lease assumption programs, for you to take over a lease from someone else, but that only lasts 'til the lease runs out. (And, frankly, given how GM has killed the EV1 - saying they had no customers when they had waiting lists several months long, and simply refusing to manufacture enough to meet demand so they could say they only sold a few thousand without saying they only built a few thousand - makes me think twice about continuing to support them.)
The option I am leaning towards is Toyota's RAV4-EV. Top speed 78 MPH, range 125 miles. It reportedly leases for $477/month, a bit less than an EV-1. Sure, it's an SUV and not a sedan, but there aren't that many options for pure electrics under your criteria (which are similar to my own) if you're just a member of the general public, not managing a fleet of cars or something.
You know I'll be monitoring this topic too, to see what my own options are...
Eating it cold, of course.
Same thing that happens today to people with photographic memory, only it'll happen to more people. Though, I specifically said "mind" since (at the moment) any implanted data storage that can not directly interface with one's nervous system is treated like merely an exotic disk for these purposes.
IANAL, but at least in California (and, I hear, many other states), the legal precedent is that any IP an employee can carry in his or her mind, that employee may then freely use in any further job regardless of NDAs or the like (which thus become unenforceable in this regard). Patents, being federal law, would trump this, but that's about it.
The irony, of course, being that the wireless networks might actually work better to give said minorities a voice, since they require even less technical expertise to operate and have a wider ('Net-wide) reach...
Thanks. That is what I had intended to say...though I had assumed - apparently unwisely - that this supporting bit would be obvious.
Which is why I mentioned the money issue. One could very easily argue that, if the FCC is to impose this mandate, it should defray the upgrade costs for the poorer (or maybe just non-profit) licensed broadcasters so as to avoid this effect. It's not an argument that derails the switch to analog (unless, of course, there's simply no money to pay for the upgrade - which is only true from a certain political point of view).
Like it or not, the FCC does have legal jurisdiction over the airwaves, on the theory that they are a limited resource. Said theory is increasingly becoming untrue as better and better use is made of the airwaves, but it is true that there can only be one station broadcasting on the frequency that matches channel 40 (for example) in a given area. Which means the FCC has every right to demand that these broadcasters make better use of said airwaves - say, by switching to digital broadcasting. One can debate the money (whether the FCC should pay for new broadcast equipment, say), but the broadcasters were told quite some time ago that this was going to happen. Mass disobedience of the law is no reason not to enforce it. (It may indicate something is wrong with the law - see the civil rights protests - but that does not appear to be the case here.)
Of course it is. I'm only worried about my own survival 'til we can haul ass (and other body parts) off this rock. Then I can tell whoever's chucking these to stop missing. ;)
"...as if billions of photons suddenly cried out, and then were silenced."
Speaking as one who uses wireless, and is a ham (KG6LGI)...
/. troll - is as severe a violation of your rights as, say, arresting you for murder just because you're black, even if you're not actually black but some photo of you came out discolored so some functionary thought it looked black and put out a warrant.)
/. account, for that matter). Even though I heavily disagree with what he has to say, I would like to applaud Mr. Galbi for saying it in this forum.
The main problem with this paper, IMO, is that it proposes that regulators should care at all about the content of the message, and not just the context. That is, that it should matter at all whether someone's broadcasting political messages, art produced independent of any major corporate or government resources, public domain (and uncopyrightable) technical information that might change how people use certain products, or just simple personal messages (say, chatting with one's family or loved ones) broadcasted over free airspace because the for-pay communications providers went out of service or were just too expensive. (Of course, from the viewpoint of certain businesses - i.e., that rich people have a natural right to make more money by any means they desire - allowing just anyone to communicate, or even just anyone who can get a ham radio license - which is easy and cheap if you have even as much brains as a typical
Currently, regulation of the airwaves is limited to technical matters because those who set up the system knew that regulation would be abused to regulate content improperly, and they wished to limit said abuse. Unlimited communication will produce more crap, but also more gems: that old "90% of everything is crap" applies to the sheer volume, and history shows that regulation more often than not cuts out both crap and the quality content, even if it was intended only to limit the crap. (Which means it may be defensible when the mere existence of the worst crap is detrimental - which almost never happens in reality, because people can just ignore said worst crap, thus it does no harm merely by existing. Unless you're one of the monied elite, who believes that the mere existence of this crap makes you lose face, a belief that is usually incorrect but is widespread nonetheless.)
That most people don't care about the technical matters that regulation is restricted to, and just want to talk, is a good thing. But he makes this into the "problem" that he proposes to solve. The freest government is no government, i.e. anarchy - and in this specific case of the content of radio communications, as opposed to making sure the communications do not interfere with each other, anarchy actually works.
All that said, it's impressive that anyone that high up in the government would actually bounce something off the public like this (or even have a