And 1.5 billion USD is not all that much when it comes to getting to LEO.
Todays current regular human launch vehicle, the Soyuz, costs around $30m and that is a fully developed and very well tested system.
In terms of rocket development, with a new design, you could expect to spend your first 1bn USD on getting to the 'Manned rated' stage.
As for orbital tethers or 'space elevators' we're talking a whole different order of magnitude for cost. 1.5bn USD in this case would probably pay for about half of the raw materials for the ground tether station. Certainly, space elevators are theoretically cost effective for getting things to orbit but only once they are built.
I think it was in the early 1980's that people were suing the light-aircraft manufacturers Cessna and Piper for causing injury to people who walked into spinning propellers!
This action, while completely stupid in every sense, was successful and effectively stopped Cessna and Piper from producing light aircraft for a number of years.
But how could Piper or Cessna possibly be responsible for accidents involving third-party operation of their aircraft??
After all, it's the Napster suit that prompted the development of central-server-less protocols like Bittorrent.
Bittorrent was designed for efficient transfer of files via a peer to peer network.
Bittorrent uses centralised trackers and indeed it was never intended to "go under the radar" it simply became popular for distributing copyright material when third-parties discovered that it was faster than what they were already using.
It has never been difficult for crackpots with agendas to spread rubbish; usually with a purchased 'of the shelf' diploma under their belt.
What would be an idea is a repository of CC licenced scientific papers which academic critics can review.
Alternatively, Universites could run their own dedicated sites for papers; they *only* allow papers from their University to be made available there but anyone can read / reproduce them under the terms of the licence.
The 'Gyration' products, oddly enough, use a gyroscope for motion encoding rather than a plain-old Piezo or otherwise accelerometer.
I suppose you could argue the toss that its a gyroscope encoder behaving as an accelerometer - oh nevermind;)
Of course, the 2-axis gyroscopes provided in most of the Gyration gear are the cause of the high-price. While Piezo accelerometers can be picked up for mere pennies, they don't have the same latency / performance / accuracy of a gyroscope.
While maintaining the usual tradiation of being an *AA organistation like the RIAA or MPAA, they added an unusual and exciting twist by only having one letter before the AA.
If you go to this page (on best online revenue models) about half way down you will find:
We're hustling to implement online classified placement that will interface with our Atex system for print as well as give us the option to go online-only. All the data show folks who place their own print classified ads online end up spending more, and with robust competition locally from craigslist, we've got to put a mechanism in place for online-only ad placement.
They haven't quite started decrying all on-line advertising yet but I'm sure they soon will do.
It may make your passport fairly heavy but I seem to remember that encasing something in thick lead tends to shield it from radiation of various sorts.
Thats not to mention the one that decided not to give climb-power on demand and went into the trees (neatly blamed on the pilot but now back under investigation).
And the other ScareBus that decided it was best to take a nose-dive toward a shopping centre against the pilots best wishes. Luckily the computers in that one relented probably with an "Only kidding" message splashed across the EFIS display.
Oh, and don't forget that the Die-by-wire systems are there to protect you from the pilot doing anything stupid like applying too much rudder deflection and shearing the tail-off.......oh, wait, New-york, 14th Nov 2001.
I'll go with your line of seats tho.
Martin-Baker; getting you out of the sh*t since 1942.
Apparently, the BIOS is designed by General Software for AMD and features a 'cryptographic handshake' between BIOS and O/S.
The Boot Security Application is a firmware application that establishes trust between platform hardware and the user application, preventing operation of systems compromised by unauthorized tampering with BIOS, OS, or application with cryptographic signatures on all trusted objects.
This sounds like a horrible lock-in to Windows CE ie: "We only want you to run what we want you to run"
However, in the same document:
Supporting both Linux and Windows, the Boot Security Application requires the user application running under Linux or Windows to periodically (as defined by a policy established by the ODM/OEM in the system registry) request security challenges and provide challenge responses, convincing the Boot Security Application, which represents the hardware and firmware, that the application is genuine. Similarly, the Boot Security Application responds to out-of-band challenges as requested by the user application, to convince the user application that it is running on genuine hardware and firmware.
So it now looks more like; "You can run another O/S but only if all the software is registered with us first"
The first line of attack with getting Linux running on an AMD PIC would appear to be by simply contacting General Software and asking if they are willing to provide some advice (Its worth a try).
Our only present yard-stick for costs on re-usable vs single-use systems is the US Shuttle and the Soyuz system.
Currently, a Shuttle launch would cost circa $300m to $500m against a Soyuz launch at circa $30m so to all intents and purposes, the Soyuz is already a 'budget' system.
It would be very suprising if this new vehicle came in cheaper 'per seat' than Soyuz. After all, it requires a larger rocket and is more technically complex.
So you could launch twice or even three times while rotating crews on the station.
You would of course, need 2 or more Soyuz standby return vehicles and a docking point for each.
I'd take it as being, you can already have 2x Soyuz modules docked with the ISS (the lifeboat + one at the UDM)
So, if you were to launch 3 Soyuz crews (2 crew per capsule + cargo) and replace the Shuttle dock with a dock costing the same as the Pirs one (which is also an EVA staging module) at $32 million + launch cost, You'd be needing to spend around $130 million initially and then $60 million per rotation if one crew of two people are not rotated. That gives the ISS a crew of 6 between changes.
That could be a really bargain remembering that one Shuttle launch costs $300-$500million.
That could well be the case but I can't see the reason behind the pre-occupation with cramming more people into the launch vehicle.
If you need more than three, the obvious solution is to launch twice.
Depending where you look, the cost of a Soyuz manned launch is between $20million and $30million. For that money, you can launch one crew, then another, then another, then another.....
And eventually, you will arrive at the cost of one $500million, 7-seater Shuttle launch.
This looks rather like a step back towards thermal tiles which can be a problem in themselves when Soyuz uses one-big-heatsheild.
Also, the shape of the re-entry vehicle is rather like a Buran nose which suggest to me a somewhat longer re-entry than the Soyuz module which 'gets it over and done with'
I'm sure I've heard several times that the Shuttle/Buran re-entry technique is 'less-safe' compared with capsule re-entry due to the duration that the craft is actually being heated.
If you were to try to *destroy* an IED with an explosive device, you'd probably just cause sympathetic detonation due to the volatility of the substances (This isn't refined plastic explosives).
Also, attempting to seperate detonator and charge would be likely impossible with what is essentially a crued toy car.
So you'd probably still be better off firing a rifle at it.
Seing as most IED designs rely on readily available and somewhat volatile substances, surely it would be cheaper and quicker to retire to a safe distance and pummel the IED with a rifle?
I'd expect the energy of a rifle-round hitting a volatile IED would be sufficient to trigger it, if not, tracer could be tried for flame ignition.
Of course, line-of-sight wouldn't always be available and that is where you could use one of these radio control cars for sympathetic detonation.
Slashdot Mirror
You do have your speakers turned on don't you?
I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw the Iraqi people in general as one of the most unfortunate peoples of the 21st century.
And 1.5 billion USD is not all that much when it comes to getting to LEO.
Todays current regular human launch vehicle, the Soyuz, costs around $30m and that is a fully developed and very well tested system.
In terms of rocket development, with a new design, you could expect to spend your first 1bn USD on getting to the 'Manned rated' stage.
As for orbital tethers or 'space elevators' we're talking a whole different order of magnitude for cost. 1.5bn USD in this case would probably pay for about half of the raw materials for the ground tether station. Certainly, space elevators are theoretically cost effective for getting things to orbit but only once they are built.
Solaris 9 (while we wait for the 'open-source' 10) is in current use in 'enterprise' situations.
So presumably any compromises of Solaris production system may mean big-trouble for it's operating companies.
This, I would suggest is the reason for the comparison.
I think it was in the early 1980's that people were suing the light-aircraft manufacturers Cessna and Piper for causing injury to people who walked into spinning propellers!
This action, while completely stupid in every sense, was successful and effectively stopped Cessna and Piper from producing light aircraft for a number of years.
But how could Piper or Cessna possibly be responsible for accidents involving third-party operation of their aircraft??
The phrase "Only in America" seems apt.
Bittorrent was designed for efficient transfer of files via a peer to peer network.
Bittorrent uses centralised trackers and indeed it was never intended to "go under the radar" it simply became popular for distributing copyright material when third-parties discovered that it was faster than what they were already using.
Peercast only allows you to watch what is being shown on any given channel as it is broadcast, much like regular broadcast TV.
The content shown is dictated by the operator of that channel.
Surely you know by now that being a 'start-up' business in the US is strictly forbidden by law and the USPTO?
You're not from round these here parts are you?
It has never been difficult for crackpots with agendas to spread rubbish; usually with a purchased 'of the shelf' diploma under their belt.
What would be an idea is a repository of CC licenced scientific papers which academic critics can review.
Alternatively, Universites could run their own dedicated sites for papers; they *only* allow papers from their University to be made available there but anyone can read / reproduce them under the terms of the licence.
The 'Gyration' products, oddly enough, use a gyroscope for motion encoding rather than a plain-old Piezo or otherwise accelerometer.
I suppose you could argue the toss that its a gyroscope encoder behaving as an accelerometer - oh nevermind
Of course, the 2-axis gyroscopes provided in most of the Gyration gear are the cause of the high-price. While Piezo accelerometers can be picked up for mere pennies, they don't have the same latency / performance / accuracy of a gyroscope.
It's the Newspaper Association of America.
While maintaining the usual tradiation of being an *AA organistation like the RIAA or MPAA, they added an unusual and exciting twist by only having one letter before the AA.
NAA.org
If you go to this page (on best online revenue models) about half way down you will find:
They haven't quite started decrying all on-line advertising yet but I'm sure they soon will do.
To be absolutely correct, BRS has been supplying their system to Cirrus for several years (with several 'saves' too)
It may make your passport fairly heavy but I seem to remember that encasing something in thick lead tends to shield it from radiation of various sorts.
Any use here?
I've already been using this and it works a treat (for mirror augmented display).
Dead simple, pixel for pixel quality and no hassle.
When referring to 'power on demand', the usual sequence would go:
*Pilot selects TOGA or full-throttle.
*Engines respond and spool up.
The greatest likelyhood is that at that airshow:
*Pilot selects full-throttle.
*Engines respond 6-8 seconds later (at the tree-line).
The FDR and CVR data was apparently doctored and is being re-investigated by lawyers for the Pilot and the Swiss Internation Police Institute.
Part of the Swiss report provides forensic evidence indicating the recorders at the trial were not the recorders in the Aircraft.
Thats not to mention the one that decided not to give climb-power on demand and went into the trees (neatly blamed on the pilot but now back under investigation).
And the other ScareBus that decided it was best to take a nose-dive toward a shopping centre against the pilots best wishes. Luckily the computers in that one relented probably with an "Only kidding" message splashed across the EFIS display.
Oh, and don't forget that the Die-by-wire systems are there to protect you from the pilot doing anything stupid like applying too much rudder deflection and shearing the tail-off.......oh, wait, New-york, 14th Nov 2001.
I'll go with your line of seats tho.
Martin-Baker; getting you out of the sh*t since 1942.
This sounds like a horrible lock-in to Windows CE ie: "We only want you to run what we want you to run"
However, in the same document:
So it now looks more like; "You can run another O/S but only if all the software is registered with us first"
The first line of attack with getting Linux running on an AMD PIC would appear to be by simply contacting General Software and asking if they are willing to provide some advice (Its worth a try).
I don't know where you read that.
The Pirs docking module was launched on a Soyuz Fregat and docked automatically with the station.
The Shuttle was not on-site during the installation.
Our only present yard-stick for costs on re-usable vs single-use systems is the US Shuttle and the Soyuz system.
Currently, a Shuttle launch would cost circa $300m to $500m against a Soyuz launch at circa $30m so to all intents and purposes, the Soyuz is already a 'budget' system.
It would be very suprising if this new vehicle came in cheaper 'per seat' than Soyuz. After all, it requires a larger rocket and is more technically complex.
So you could launch twice or even three times while rotating crews on the station.
You would of course, need 2 or more Soyuz standby return vehicles and a docking point for each.
I'd take it as being, you can already have 2x Soyuz modules docked with the ISS (the lifeboat + one at the UDM)
So, if you were to launch 3 Soyuz crews (2 crew per capsule + cargo) and replace the Shuttle dock with a dock costing the same as the Pirs one (which is also an EVA staging module) at $32 million + launch cost, You'd be needing to spend around $130 million initially and then $60 million per rotation if one crew of two people are not rotated. That gives the ISS a crew of 6 between changes.
That could be a really bargain remembering that one Shuttle launch costs $300-$500million.
That could well be the case but I can't see the reason behind the pre-occupation with cramming more people into the launch vehicle.
If you need more than three, the obvious solution is to launch twice.
Depending where you look, the cost of a Soyuz manned launch is between $20million and $30million. For that money, you can launch one crew, then another, then another, then another.....
And eventually, you will arrive at the cost of one $500million, 7-seater Shuttle launch.
This looks rather like a step back towards thermal tiles which can be a problem in themselves when Soyuz uses one-big-heatsheild.
Also, the shape of the re-entry vehicle is rather like a Buran nose which suggest to me a somewhat longer re-entry than the Soyuz module which 'gets it over and done with'
I'm sure I've heard several times that the Shuttle/Buran re-entry technique is 'less-safe' compared with capsule re-entry due to the duration that the craft is actually being heated.
My point is still the same on that.
If you were to try to *destroy* an IED with an explosive device, you'd probably just cause sympathetic detonation due to the volatility of the substances (This isn't refined plastic explosives).
Also, attempting to seperate detonator and charge would be likely impossible with what is essentially a crued toy car.
So you'd probably still be better off firing a rifle at it.
Seing as most IED designs rely on readily available and somewhat volatile substances, surely it would be cheaper and quicker to retire to a safe distance and pummel the IED with a rifle?
I'd expect the energy of a rifle-round hitting a volatile IED would be sufficient to trigger it, if not, tracer could be tried for flame ignition.
Of course, line-of-sight wouldn't always be available and that is where you could use one of these radio control cars for sympathetic detonation.