I seem to recall that the net thrust exhibited by the em-drive is greater than the photon pressure of the microwaves. if the thrust was being produced by cancelling photon pairs escaping the system, then it would be some fraction of that potential, not greater than.
I can see this explaining SOME of the thrust, but the deal breaker is the thrust being higher than the photon pressure of the microwaves it runs on. (Else, it would be easier and more efficient to just aim the magnetron's waveguide out the back of the ship.)
Shawyer's non-peer reviewed "quantized inertia" explanation that abuses unruh radiation is more likely to explain the greater thrust values (and also makes some testable predictions.)
MS wouldnt put telemetry as a header. You can choose not to include, or worse, edit, header files.
no no. The CC will hard link "telemetry.o" to every project at compile time, and wont have any switches to disable that behavior. Don't worry, they use digital signature checking to be sure that telemetry.o is the object file it expects it to be. Cant have untrusted objects in the linking phase now.
The more data you warehouse, and the more valuable that data is, the more interested in breaching your security the hackers of the world are.
But of course, these businesses will never consider this risk as an itemized business cost, and will just greedily sequester more and more data, while continuing to pay lipservice to network security.
And then, when the hackers clean them out, they pout about needing more onerous antihacking laws.
Better idea: Don't mass warehouse data, or, if you decide to do so, keep that data isolated from your internet facing network, and pay for proper security featuring penetration testing and security auditing.
It did have a TCP/IP implementation though. It just didnt do netbios over it.
win3.1 needed trumpet tcp, or some other 3rd party stack, but WFW had it natively. This was the era where Netscape was really starting to hit the scene, and the web was an emerging phenomenon. IIRC, there was an early version of IE for WFW.
That is why when win95 rolled out, with IE preinstalled (but not thuroughly baked in), it started MS's ascendency. When win98 hit with it permanently baked in, it started the lawsuit.
History lesson over, netbios over tcp debuted on win9x. Prior to that, it was NETBEUI and IPX.
shit, secondary processors have been inside PCs since the 80s.
Remember things like "A20 gate" in old pcs? It was a hack on the AT keyboard controller. It was introduced to solve an addressing issue with ram above 1mb in real mode.
Using secondary chips to do things in memory is an ancient idea. The amiga relied on it quite heavily in fact.
Own a Wii? There's a secondary ARM core nicknamed "scarlet" in there, running beside the PPC core.
While having this system compromised by malware is a worrisome prospect, having it opened up for clever sideband processing tasks could be very beneficial to PCs in the future. Right now it is just a system management interface. In the future, that system could enable all sorts of neat stuff. granted, some of the things it can enable are not pleasant. A great many are, however.
Why the scaremongering? Fear sells eyeballs, and eyeballs make money.
We must be thinking of different substances. Laundry bleach is sodium hypochlorate. Its primary method of action is chemical oxidation. When you oxidize most lipids, they form complex branching polymers. That wont wash them down the pipe, it will harden them into resin.
Treating them with hydroxide, however, will cause exchange of the fatty acid head with the sodium, making the complex able to form stable mycelles which can be suspended in the water as a colloid.
Bleach destroys hair and protien by decomposing the amide groups into chloramines.
I just use boiling hot laundry bleach. Cheap, does not get you on a government watch list, and does the job fast.
Unless your slow drain is in a fast food place, or a kitchen that uses too much fat. Then you should consider installing a grease trap. Bleach wont do anything to fat, but then again, neither will concentrated HCl. Hydroxides will, but those get you on watch lists, and damage pipes.
You dont land the heavy transporter. That is silly.
The transport does transfer orbit maneouvers between mars and earth. It never enters atmosphere, and ideally, would never have experienced being at the bottom of a steep gravity well. If you dont mind long schedules, it could theoretically fall between lagranian points for very little fuel.
What it has: Thick rad shielding (take your pick, but water is ideal.) Heavy cargo capacity Nuclear power Possibly small fabrication suite Big ass engines simulated gravity crew section (really, just a big spinning section for people to spend time/exercise in.)
The heavy cargo capacity is where it shines. it drops landing craft from orbit. Think Dragon cargo capsule, but could just as easily be big rover type payloads.
I know it looks like snake oil, but if EM-drive actually keeps holding up to tests, it could enable this kind of vehicle.
So, a sandpoint and some black PVC pipe will be sufficient. It would require a purpose built robot to do the deed, but once driven, could extract hundreds of gallons of very salty water per martian day.
This is hardly difficult problem solving. Hell, you could use a freaking bucket brigade if you did it fast enough.
The major problems will be freezing of the water in the storage tank, due to it being colder than a witch's tit, even in full sun, in summer. It will need solar powered heating elements to keep it liquid.
If you dont know what a sandpoint is, I suggest you google it.
Clearly you are just an argumentative idiot that cant be bothered to actually educate himself.
I can cure ignorance, but not stupid. If you cant figure out how you can collect seasonally flowing liquid water, I dont even know where to begin.
In short, you are an idiot, and you should feel bad. But dont let that little fact disuade you like any of the others I have upset your sensibilities with. By all means, demonstrate your idiocy some more with yet more ill-founded aspersions. Please, I enjoy the entertainment.
This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but I have worked (and now, am actively working) in aerospace manufacturing.
Smelting is energy intensive, that I will give you. The cold as a witch's tit surface conditions will present additional obstacles. On the flipside, the lack of free oxygen in the atmosphere will be very beneficial to producing quality metal stock materials.
To me, the ovious road to success looks like this:
Big reusable heavy transport ship is constructed in Lunar orbit, uses water gel as rad sheilding. It has limited permanent crew, and is on a permanent transfer orbit itinerary. It carries material mined on the moon, and later, humans sourced from earth, to martian orbit.
Prefab command and control centers are established on either phobos of demos. Limited human crews are stationed there, and resupplied regularly by the heavy transport. These stations make use of the asteroid bodies as radiation sheilding for their limited crews, and make use of the short turnaround time for communication with the martian surface. They control remote drone construction robots on the martian surface, dropped there by the heavy transport.
This is how the martian habitats are constructed and covered in dirt. No humans with shovels. That's absurd.
Once the initial habitat construction is completed, limited human crews are established, and supplied by the heavy transport. Minimal light fabrication (nothing more complicated than a small manual milling machine, or a shopclass size smelter) equipment gets dropped for fault tolerance. Construction of heavier facilities for heavy industrial applications occurs.
Once the raw structures are in place, heavy industry payloads are dropped and installed.
THEN heavy industry and permanent self-sufficiency can be discussed.
And no, idiot. The likening to Indian call centers is an analogy. It would have more in common with a Foxconn factory city, except the product is sent into space cheaply, not sent to earth.
But feel free to criticize things you dont understand, bask in your own delusions of gandure, plug your ears, and pretend that people wanting to accomplish such a goal are "space nutters", and other just idiocy. You have already demonstrated that you cant even be bothered to read other people's posts before replying with idiocy to them. The proof is in the pudding on that one.
Did you even fucking read what I wrote before responding, idiot?
Here, i will say it again, with big assed capital letters this time, so you cant possibly miss it.
YOU DO **NOT** NEED TO SEND THINGS BACK TO EARTH TO PROFIT FROM SPACE BASED MANUFACTURING.
That was the entire thrust in the prior post-- and your rebuttle? what are you illiterate or something? Maybe just lazy? WTF man!
The gravity on mars is roughly 1/3 that of Earths. That means for the same rocket, you and loft 3X as much mass.
Once a good manufacturing infrastructure is up and running, you can drive earth based launch services for anything other than transporting people out of business.
That's how you make money with it idiot. The same way that India is killing US IT with offshored call centers.
I was instead looking at the historical parallels with european colonization of north and south america. There are resources that can be effectively processed on mars, iron being one of them. Sending the refining and smelting equipment there, then the people to operate it, would go a very long way to establishing space based manufacture.
Why attempt to establish space based manufacture?
I remind you, sending goods back to Earth is not a strict necessity. Money is, by and large, a mostly electronic thing these days, and simply having more market outside of earth's immediate ecommerce zone stands to be very profitable. It is very cheap to beam bits into orbit and back. To have this increased market potential, you need self sustaining human settlements. That means space based manufacture.
Also, services rendered by space based populations can drastically undercut the costs of launch from earth in many circumstances. Say for instance, ESA wants to send a science probe to the kuipier belt. To do that from earth requires a very big and heavy rocket. You need a much smaller rocket to launch from mars. Assuming you can beam the plans for the probe to mars (cheaply and reliably), have it manufactured there, and launched from there, you can get the contract from the ESA on earth, and profit from having space based manufacture without ever having to drop any physical payloads on earth.
There is a shitload of money to be made by being the first to capture the satelite and probe market via space based manufacture.
No nubile green sex slaves required, just the iphone factory kind.
Not advisable. High energy particle interaction will make the water radioactive over time. That's what is so good about the gel-- it doesnt flow well, and has low dispersion. The radioactive water will stay near the outer hull. That water's one and only use is as sheilding.
Besides, there seems to be plenting of bound hydrogen and oxygen on mars, and brine water appears to be a seasonal feature at equitorial latitudes just below the surface. Water on mars is not a significant hurdle.
Radiation exposure on the martian surface is more of an intractible problem than water. For that, the cheapest is sandbags piled up over dirt that was itself piled up on top of the habitats. Surface exposure is going to be a very serious thing that needs mitigation.
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Indenturement was the defacto way for "ordinary" people to secure passage to "the new world" in the days of sailing ships.
Given the absurd cost per kilogram of weight to put something into orbit, you either need a very deep set of pockets of a very idealist patron, or you need a business plan that seeks to "extract value" at every point in the mission's planning. It is much cheaper to produce more humans in space than it is to ship them off the ground, and multinationals have no qualms about abusing international labor laws to achieve sweatshop/slave labor conditions for increased profits right now on Earth. The "nonregulated" nature of a space stationed human population for labor exploitation would simply be too much to pass up.
Unless of course, you dont see any kind of space based manufacture happening at all, and see the whole thing as a boondoggle that can do nothing but fail spectacularly without constant support efforts from Earth-- in which case, I would say you spend too much time in your echo chamber.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhhh! So THAT explains why the enterprise is always looking for gaseous anomalies!
Do the phartons exhibit any kind of tunneling behavior? I'd expect them to be quite difficult to contain...
It's very simple, AC.
You see, when you touch your little red rocket, and make the fuel spray out, it makes daddy god very angry. Especially if it gets on the floor.
When daddy god gets angry, he makes poor little jesus have to strike you blind, so you cant find it anymore.
Really, it's all in the bible, which everyone knows is the leading authority on everything. /sarcasm
That's not nice!
I am sure this poor soul just tried many times to gain tenure, and ended up having to take a real job in software instead.
I dont see "quantum burrito" on the standard menu-- Is this something you have to ask the universe for directly?
There's one problem though...
I seem to recall that the net thrust exhibited by the em-drive is greater than the photon pressure of the microwaves. if the thrust was being produced by cancelling photon pairs escaping the system, then it would be some fraction of that potential, not greater than.
I can see this explaining SOME of the thrust, but the deal breaker is the thrust being higher than the photon pressure of the microwaves it runs on. (Else, it would be easier and more efficient to just aim the magnetron's waveguide out the back of the ship.)
Shawyer's non-peer reviewed "quantized inertia" explanation that abuses unruh radiation is more likely to explain the greater thrust values (and also makes some testable predictions.)
Oh hush AC, Let us have our fun. ;P
no no no.
MS wouldnt put telemetry as a header. You can choose not to include, or worse, edit, header files.
no no. The CC will hard link "telemetry.o" to every project at compile time, and wont have any switches to disable that behavior. Don't worry, they use digital signature checking to be sure that telemetry.o is the object file it expects it to be. Cant have untrusted objects in the linking phase now.
it will never take off, because breaking those rules lets programmers do "neat tricks", which they wont be able to do with type-strict conventions.
when there is an alternative that allows laziness, expect that option to be vastly more popular.
The more data you warehouse, and the more valuable that data is, the more interested in breaching your security the hackers of the world are.
But of course, these businesses will never consider this risk as an itemized business cost, and will just greedily sequester more and more data, while continuing to pay lipservice to network security.
And then, when the hackers clean them out, they pout about needing more onerous antihacking laws.
Better idea: Don't mass warehouse data, or, if you decide to do so, keep that data isolated from your internet facing network, and pay for proper security featuring penetration testing and security auditing.
WFW used NETBEUI, and IPX, yes.
It did have a TCP/IP implementation though. It just didnt do netbios over it.
win3.1 needed trumpet tcp, or some other 3rd party stack, but WFW had it natively. This was the era where Netscape was really starting to hit the scene, and the web was an emerging phenomenon. IIRC, there was an early version of IE for WFW.
That is why when win95 rolled out, with IE preinstalled (but not thuroughly baked in), it started MS's ascendency. When win98 hit with it permanently baked in, it started the lawsuit.
History lesson over, netbios over tcp debuted on win9x. Prior to that, it was NETBEUI and IPX.
shit, secondary processors have been inside PCs since the 80s.
Remember things like "A20 gate" in old pcs? It was a hack on the AT keyboard controller. It was introduced to solve an addressing issue with ram above 1mb in real mode.
Using secondary chips to do things in memory is an ancient idea. The amiga relied on it quite heavily in fact.
Own a Wii? There's a secondary ARM core nicknamed "scarlet" in there, running beside the PPC core.
While having this system compromised by malware is a worrisome prospect, having it opened up for clever sideband processing tasks could be very beneficial to PCs in the future. Right now it is just a system management interface. In the future, that system could enable all sorts of neat stuff. granted, some of the things it can enable are not pleasant. A great many are, however.
Why the scaremongering? Fear sells eyeballs, and eyeballs make money.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
We must be thinking of different substances. Laundry bleach is sodium hypochlorate. Its primary method of action is chemical oxidation. When you oxidize most lipids, they form complex branching polymers. That wont wash them down the pipe, it will harden them into resin.
Treating them with hydroxide, however, will cause exchange of the fatty acid head with the sodium, making the complex able to form stable mycelles which can be suspended in the water as a colloid.
Bleach destroys hair and protien by decomposing the amide groups into chloramines.
Refined sodium hydroxide is used in meth manufacture. If you buy lots of it, it does get you on watch lists. Just not terrorist ones.
why?
I just use boiling hot laundry bleach. Cheap, does not get you on a government watch list, and does the job fast.
Unless your slow drain is in a fast food place, or a kitchen that uses too much fat. Then you should consider installing a grease trap. Bleach wont do anything to fat, but then again, neither will concentrated HCl. Hydroxides will, but those get you on watch lists, and damage pipes.
You dont land the heavy transporter. That is silly.
The transport does transfer orbit maneouvers between mars and earth. It never enters atmosphere, and ideally, would never have experienced being at the bottom of a steep gravity well. If you dont mind long schedules, it could theoretically fall between lagranian points for very little fuel.
What it has:
Thick rad shielding (take your pick, but water is ideal.)
Heavy cargo capacity
Nuclear power
Possibly small fabrication suite
Big ass engines
simulated gravity crew section (really, just a big spinning section for people to spend time/exercise in.)
The heavy cargo capacity is where it shines. it drops landing craft from orbit. Think Dragon cargo capsule, but could just as easily be big rover type payloads.
I know it looks like snake oil, but if EM-drive actually keeps holding up to tests, it could enable this kind of vehicle.
The issue is the metal of the hull itself, and the acrylate plastic the gel is comprised of.
Both will be sources of nastier, longer lived radioisotopes.
The water is freely flowing down the slope.
So, a sandpoint and some black PVC pipe will be sufficient. It would require a purpose built robot to do the deed, but once driven, could extract hundreds of gallons of very salty water per martian day.
This is hardly difficult problem solving. Hell, you could use a freaking bucket brigade if you did it fast enough.
The major problems will be freezing of the water in the storage tank, due to it being colder than a witch's tit, even in full sun, in summer. It will need solar powered heating elements to keep it liquid.
If you dont know what a sandpoint is, I suggest you google it.
bwahahaha.
I mean. Have you not paid attention to the suicide nets in Foxconn's factory city?
What else do you call it, when you are told to meet (or exceed) quota, or you wont be getting a resupply pod?
Who is going to sue? In what jurisdiction? Can Tim Cook be held legally liable for the conditions in China?
Dont be naive. Slavery is very much alive and well.
Clearly you are just an argumentative idiot that cant be bothered to actually educate himself.
I can cure ignorance, but not stupid. If you cant figure out how you can collect seasonally flowing liquid water, I dont even know where to begin.
In short, you are an idiot, and you should feel bad. But dont let that little fact disuade you like any of the others I have upset your sensibilities with. By all means, demonstrate your idiocy some more with yet more ill-founded aspersions. Please, I enjoy the entertainment.
This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but I have worked (and now, am actively working) in aerospace manufacturing.
Smelting is energy intensive, that I will give you. The cold as a witch's tit surface conditions will present additional obstacles. On the flipside, the lack of free oxygen in the atmosphere will be very beneficial to producing quality metal stock materials.
To me, the ovious road to success looks like this:
Big reusable heavy transport ship is constructed in Lunar orbit, uses water gel as rad sheilding. It has limited permanent crew, and is on a permanent transfer orbit itinerary. It carries material mined on the moon, and later, humans sourced from earth, to martian orbit.
Prefab command and control centers are established on either phobos of demos. Limited human crews are stationed there, and resupplied regularly by the heavy transport. These stations make use of the asteroid bodies as radiation sheilding for their limited crews, and make use of the short turnaround time for communication with the martian surface. They control remote drone construction robots on the martian surface, dropped there by the heavy transport.
This is how the martian habitats are constructed and covered in dirt. No humans with shovels. That's absurd.
Once the initial habitat construction is completed, limited human crews are established, and supplied by the heavy transport. Minimal light fabrication (nothing more complicated than a small manual milling machine, or a shopclass size smelter) equipment gets dropped for fault tolerance. Construction of heavier facilities for heavy industrial applications occurs.
Once the raw structures are in place, heavy industry payloads are dropped and installed.
THEN heavy industry and permanent self-sufficiency can be discussed.
And no, idiot. The likening to Indian call centers is an analogy. It would have more in common with a Foxconn factory city, except the product is sent into space cheaply, not sent to earth.
But feel free to criticize things you dont understand, bask in your own delusions of gandure, plug your ears, and pretend that people wanting to accomplish such a goal are "space nutters", and other just idiocy. You have already demonstrated that you cant even be bothered to read other people's posts before replying with idiocy to them. The proof is in the pudding on that one.
Did you even fucking read what I wrote before responding, idiot?
Here, i will say it again, with big assed capital letters this time, so you cant possibly miss it.
YOU DO **NOT** NEED TO SEND THINGS BACK TO EARTH TO PROFIT FROM SPACE BASED MANUFACTURING.
That was the entire thrust in the prior post-- and your rebuttle? what are you illiterate or something? Maybe just lazy? WTF man!
The gravity on mars is roughly 1/3 that of Earths. That means for the same rocket, you and loft 3X as much mass.
Once a good manufacturing infrastructure is up and running, you can drive earth based launch services for anything other than transporting people out of business.
That's how you make money with it idiot. The same way that India is killing US IT with offshored call centers.
Considering that seasonal brine flows have been seen large enough to displace TONS of martial soil from the MRO, yes-- Yes I do.
Also, when considering the ground penetrating radar scans showing shallow subsurface water ice.
There is a lot of water on Mars.
who said anything about star trek? I sure didnt.
I was instead looking at the historical parallels with european colonization of north and south america. There are resources that can be effectively processed on mars, iron being one of them. Sending the refining and smelting equipment there, then the people to operate it, would go a very long way to establishing space based manufacture.
Why attempt to establish space based manufacture?
I remind you, sending goods back to Earth is not a strict necessity. Money is, by and large, a mostly electronic thing these days, and simply having more market outside of earth's immediate ecommerce zone stands to be very profitable. It is very cheap to beam bits into orbit and back. To have this increased market potential, you need self sustaining human settlements. That means space based manufacture.
Also, services rendered by space based populations can drastically undercut the costs of launch from earth in many circumstances. Say for instance, ESA wants to send a science probe to the kuipier belt. To do that from earth requires a very big and heavy rocket. You need a much smaller rocket to launch from mars. Assuming you can beam the plans for the probe to mars (cheaply and reliably), have it manufactured there, and launched from there, you can get the contract from the ESA on earth, and profit from having space based manufacture without ever having to drop any physical payloads on earth.
There is a shitload of money to be made by being the first to capture the satelite and probe market via space based manufacture.
No nubile green sex slaves required, just the iphone factory kind.
Not advisable. High energy particle interaction will make the water radioactive over time. That's what is so good about the gel-- it doesnt flow well, and has low dispersion. The radioactive water will stay near the outer hull. That water's one and only use is as sheilding.
Besides, there seems to be plenting of bound hydrogen and oxygen on mars, and brine water appears to be a seasonal feature at equitorial latitudes just below the surface. Water on mars is not a significant hurdle.
Radiation exposure on the martian surface is more of an intractible problem than water. For that, the cheapest is sandbags piled up over dirt that was itself piled up on top of the habitats. Surface exposure is going to be a very serious thing that needs mitigation.
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Indenturement was the defacto way for "ordinary" people to secure passage to "the new world" in the days of sailing ships.
Given the absurd cost per kilogram of weight to put something into orbit, you either need a very deep set of pockets of a very idealist patron, or you need a business plan that seeks to "extract value" at every point in the mission's planning. It is much cheaper to produce more humans in space than it is to ship them off the ground, and multinationals have no qualms about abusing international labor laws to achieve sweatshop/slave labor conditions for increased profits right now on Earth. The "nonregulated" nature of a space stationed human population for labor exploitation would simply be too much to pass up.
Unless of course, you dont see any kind of space based manufacture happening at all, and see the whole thing as a boondoggle that can do nothing but fail spectacularly without constant support efforts from Earth-- in which case, I would say you spend too much time in your echo chamber.