The X-33 had a lot of promising ideas and new technologies - it's nice to see that all of that will get a second chance.
It's actually more of a third chance. Before NASA had it, it was under the auspices of the Ballistic Missle Defense Organization (under the Department of Defense), in a (relatively) low-cost/fast-track arrangement with McDonnell Douglas. Development seemed to steady and promising until it was passed over to NASA.
At this point, I just want somebody to work on it, as long as it results in a useful (and publicly available) design.
Now I'm suspicious. Why are we paying attention to a Russian project, funded by an entertainment company, and promoted by some UFO nut who believes in aliens?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm paying attention to this project because it's interesting.
If I ignored everything connected to anyone who might have some weird ideas, I'd have to stop reading Slashdot. Hell, I'd have to stop reading, period.
I think it is the connection between space flight and weapons technology that has caused all the worlds governments to block private access to space and space flight technology. The availablity of cheap simple space ships like the DC-X make it just to easy for someone to carry out atomic, chemical, or biological attacks anywhere in the world. Just build your weapon, hijack a ship and BOOM!
If "all the worlds governments" are blocking private access to space, this would be a really bone-headed reason to do so. You could do the same thing with an ocean-going ship. Ever notice how many major world cities are coastal cities?
Even a small plane would probably work just fine. Remember those folks landing in Red Square with a Piper Cub or something like that?
And before anyone makes the obvious mistake, no, it's probably not relevant that an SSTO-ish vehicle could get there faster. This is very much a terrorist scenario, in which case it's not as important how long the weapon takes to get there.
Yup. (Yes, folks, isn't it astonishing!? Someone posting to Slashdot who actually admits that he doesn't know everything! Wow! Better mod this up!)
But "people who read aerodynamics textbooks" are still guessing, no matter how knowlegeable those guesses are. Educated guesses about classified perfomance is pretty much irrelevant to "the record". By definition, any such flights -- if they happened -- are off-record.
I think it's interesting -- and possibly a little exasperating to Mr. Torvalds -- that this is what was pulled from his autobiography as newsworthy.
On the other hand, Mac OS X has been in the news a lot recently, and the PR staff of the book's publisher may have encouraged an article like like this for the PR value. Controversy sells.
Given the state of the Russian economy, modifying one of their ICBMs -- especially since it's certainly one already designed to be sub-launched -- and renting a sub to launch it probably is cheap, in comparison to other methods.
(Thanks, NASA et al, for screwing up the DC-X and generally continuing to smackdown any other chance for cheaper launch systems.)
It's called inertia. If the same engine powers two cars, and everything between the two cars is equal, but one of the cars weighs twice as much, the lighter car will accelerate faster.
Yup, good ol' f=ma. Or, in this case, a=f/m.
And why the hell was this post moderated as Off Topic?? Are moderaters that stupid?
Who knows? Maybe meta-moderation will get 'em, maybe not. [shrug] The system's not perfect, but it does ok, overall.
1. The further you are from the sun, the less force is exerted on the sails, until the forces from other stars/suns outweighs the force of our sun. Remembering that our sun is relatively small, this will not necessarily be at the midpoint between solar systems.
Nod. Using these for interstellar travel would be trickier than just sailing aroung the solar system. Some possible work-arounds have been proposed, though.
2. Travelling towards the sun is difficult and requires some sort of "tacking" process.
Travelling toward the sun is cake. "Tack" to lower any orbital velocity "around" the sun, and the sun's own gravity will do the rest.
3. Travelling in any direction other than away from the sun requires a centerboard and rudder for maintaining a direction.
Oops. No. These are work great in the context of sailing on top of a fluid medium, but there are other ways of maintaining orientation -- gyros, small thrusters, auxilary "guide sails", etc.
4. Sun-spots change the intensity of the solar winds, creating 'gusts'. Gusts will be difficult to control.
"Gusts" of solar wind aren't really closely comparable to gusts of air. With reasonable sensors and feedback systems, a solar sail would manage just fine.
From what I can see, there is only one direction the vessel can travel, and that will be determined by the release time from the earth, and the velocity at releas. After that, the only form of control is to change the "sail area" by either reducing sail size, or by changing orientation. Neither of these processes change direction, only speed.
Changing the orientation of the sail can change the direction and/or speed of the craft, especially when used in combination with gravity fields.
Oh well, I am sure some viable use will be found for it. Either that or we will dump millions of dollars into it and then decide that it isn't viable.
One of the interesting things about this particular project is that it's privately funded. (By Cosmos Studios, which is a joint venture of Carl Sagan Productions, Inc. and Intend Change, Inc.) "We" aren't "dumping" any money into it, in this case.
The sail must be thin and have a minimal mass, because the more mass, the less force that sunlight imparts to the sail.
Um. I think the force imparted by the sunlight is the same. The force imparted just results in a lower acceleration if the mass of the sailcraft is higher.
That was the tentative best theory for a while. This seems to be the best theory right now. Current evidence seems pretty strong, but it's not an issue that it makes sense to be absolutely certain about, at least not yet.
Entropia does a similar thing with "FightAIDSatHome". You have to read kinda carefully to catch this:
Entropia is a for-profit corporation. From time to time Entropia 2000 will run commercial applications for our customers on your computer, then resume work on the non-profit projects of your choice. How much time goes to non-profit research is reflected by our project statistics.
Note that their "project statistics" reflect work to date and there's no hint of the fact that the stats could change drastically once the paying customers line up.
I got nothing against a little Benevolent Self-Interest, but being disingenuous about the set-up strikes me as slimy.
The aspect of this story that I find scary is that the plasma gun is apparently already under classified development.
That's the speculation of some unnamed "observers". Another possibility is that the high-ranking military official who'd been getting kick-backs for keeping it alive retired, so they just shut it down.
Even if it was classified, that's not necessarily something to be scared about. I gather that there's sometimes a certain amount of whim involved in what does and doesn't get classified.
Yea, that's great, but when will they be on the market for the average jo to buy one?
Last September.
From the article: "The first phone to hit the market with an organic light-emitting diode display is Motorola's $300 Timeport P8767, which went on sale last September."
Trust me, you won't be happy with this thing on an iMac.
Uh, nothing personal, but why should I trust you over the folks -- and I don't mean just Apple, who might be tempted to exaggerate -- who've said that OS X works just fine on a G3?
Uh, I daresay a great deal of work went into designing the user interface for a Lear Jet.
And if you want a computing environment that's as tough to learn how to use as it is to learn how to fly, hey, your kink is ok, but it's not necessary.
Even if you were limiting yourself to buying new hardware to put it on, you can get a system that'll run it for $900 (plus some piddling amount for a little extra memory). If you were willing to buy used hardware, you could go much cheaper than that.
Am I an Apple user? Nope, but I will be. I've got a new iMac sitting on my desk and my copy of OS X is on the way.
Your proposal would probably itself be unconstitutional!
On what grounds?
If you're right, I wouldn't vote for it or sign it. (In the unlikely event that I'd be in a position to do so.) There's a difference -- or should be -- between toying with a concept and thinking that it should be implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually more of a third chance. Before NASA had it, it was under the auspices of the Ballistic Missle Defense Organization (under the Department of Defense), in a (relatively) low-cost/fast-track arrangement with McDonnell Douglas. Development seemed to steady and promising until it was passed over to NASA.
At this point, I just want somebody to work on it, as long as it results in a useful (and publicly available) design.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm paying attention to this project because it's interesting.
If I ignored everything connected to anyone who might have some weird ideas, I'd have to stop reading Slashdot. Hell, I'd have to stop reading, period.
If "all the worlds governments" are blocking private access to space, this would be a really bone-headed reason to do so. You could do the same thing with an ocean-going ship. Ever notice how many major world cities are coastal cities?
Even a small plane would probably work just fine. Remember those folks landing in Red Square with a Piper Cub or something like that?
And before anyone makes the obvious mistake, no, it's probably not relevant that an SSTO-ish vehicle could get there faster. This is very much a terrorist scenario, in which case it's not as important how long the weapon takes to get there.
Yup. (Yes, folks, isn't it astonishing!? Someone posting to Slashdot who actually admits that he doesn't know everything! Wow! Better mod this up!)
But "people who read aerodynamics textbooks" are still guessing, no matter how knowlegeable those guesses are. Educated guesses about classified perfomance is pretty much irrelevant to "the record". By definition, any such flights -- if they happened -- are off-record.
Oh, well, if you say so, then I guess it must be.
It's so nice to see such insightful and well-phrased commentary on Slashdot modded up, just as it should be.
On the other hand, Mac OS X has been in the news a lot recently, and the PR staff of the book's publisher may have encouraged an article like like this for the PR value. Controversy sells.
(Thanks, NASA et al, for screwing up the DC-X and generally continuing to smackdown any other chance for cheaper launch systems.)
Yup, good ol' f=ma. Or, in this case, a=f/m.
And why the hell was this post moderated as Off Topic?? Are moderaters that stupid?
Who knows? Maybe meta-moderation will get 'em, maybe not. [shrug] The system's not perfect, but it does ok, overall.
(That's off-topic, though f=ma isn't.)
Nod. Using these for interstellar travel would be trickier than just sailing aroung the solar system. Some possible work-arounds have been proposed, though.
2. Travelling towards the sun is difficult and requires some sort of "tacking" process.
Travelling toward the sun is cake. "Tack" to lower any orbital velocity "around" the sun, and the sun's own gravity will do the rest.
3. Travelling in any direction other than away from the sun requires a centerboard and rudder for maintaining a direction.
Oops. No. These are work great in the context of sailing on top of a fluid medium, but there are other ways of maintaining orientation -- gyros, small thrusters, auxilary "guide sails", etc.
4. Sun-spots change the intensity of the solar winds, creating 'gusts'. Gusts will be difficult to control.
"Gusts" of solar wind aren't really closely comparable to gusts of air. With reasonable sensors and feedback systems, a solar sail would manage just fine.
From what I can see, there is only one direction the vessel can travel, and that will be determined by the release time from the earth, and the velocity at releas. After that, the only form of control is to change the "sail area" by either reducing sail size, or by changing orientation. Neither of these processes change direction, only speed.
Changing the orientation of the sail can change the direction and/or speed of the craft, especially when used in combination with gravity fields.
One of the interesting things about this particular project is that it's privately funded. (By Cosmos Studios, which is a joint venture of Carl Sagan Productions, Inc. and Intend Change, Inc.) "We" aren't "dumping" any money into it, in this case.
I think it depends a lot on the mission characteristics. Some propulsions systems are good for some kinds of missions, some for others.
Besides, how are solar sails ever going to become feasible unless someone starts actively working on them?
Um. I think the force imparted by the sunlight is the same. The force imparted just results in a lower acceleration if the mass of the sailcraft is higher.
That was the tentative best theory for a while. This seems to be the best theory right now. Current evidence seems pretty strong, but it's not an issue that it makes sense to be absolutely certain about, at least not yet.
The Invisible Hand has been stomped on so many times, there's nothing left but a blood stain.
Entropia is a for-profit corporation. From time to time Entropia 2000 will run commercial applications for our customers on your computer, then resume work on the non-profit projects of your choice. How much time goes to non-profit research is reflected by our project statistics.
Note that their "project statistics" reflect work to date and there's no hint of the fact that the stats could change drastically once the paying customers line up.
I got nothing against a little Benevolent Self-Interest, but being disingenuous about the set-up strikes me as slimy.
That's the speculation of some unnamed "observers". Another possibility is that the high-ranking military official who'd been getting kick-backs for keeping it alive retired, so they just shut it down.
Even if it was classified, that's not necessarily something to be scared about. I gather that there's sometimes a certain amount of whim involved in what does and doesn't get classified.
Last September.
From the article: "The first phone to hit the market with an organic light-emitting diode display is Motorola's $300 Timeport P8767, which went on sale last September."
Uh, nothing personal, but why should I trust you over the folks -- and I don't mean just Apple, who might be tempted to exaggerate -- who've said that OS X works just fine on a G3?
Incorrect. OS X can take advantage of AltiVec for some things, but doesn't need it. Ditto for a few (very few, so far) applications.
And if you want a computing environment that's as tough to learn how to use as it is to learn how to fly, hey, your kink is ok, but it's not necessary.
And just like all Macs before it, no one will write any software for OS X.
When was the last time you checked out what software was available for Macs? 1995?
http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/index.htm l
http://www.versiontracker.com/
Am I an Apple user? Nope, but I will be. I've got a new iMac sitting on my desk and my copy of OS X is on the way.
On what grounds?
If you're right, I wouldn't vote for it or sign it. (In the unlikely event that I'd be in a position to do so.) There's a difference -- or should be -- between toying with a concept and thinking that it should be implemented.
(Optional additional penalty for really dumb examples of such legislation: a boot to the head.)
"But" != "and".