Agreed, a lot of this just seems silly and nitpicky. He doesn't even bring out the really big ones, like measuring speed in parsecs, the complete lack of railings around giant drops, and how "R2D2" and "C3PO" are too short to be unique identifiers in a huge, galaxy-wide society with lots of droids around.
What these personal projects usually miss is that it's not enough to just be able to build the thing in your garage. It has to be economical to produce it on an assembly line, and also has to fit government safety standards and emissions controls.
You can make any old car get at least a 10mpg bump just by knocking off all the stuff you don't technically need to drive it around (air bags, sound proofing, padded seats, stereo, air con, etc.). Doesn't mean anyone would buy it, or even be allowed to buy it.
Diesel-electrics are used in trains for torque conversions, not efficiency. The gears in a traditional transmission would need to be too big to handle the job. For long cruising, hybrids show little to no improvement over pure diesel.
Not sure what kind of grow lights you're thinking of, but since plants can grow just fine under a combination of monocrome red and blue, LED grow lights can be extremely effective. A 1W LED array goes a long way.
Chances are, it'll already be on the moon and working before astronauts even get there. This is not the first nuclear-based energy source NASA has launched.
We can reasonably expect to find a source of uranium on the moon or a passing asteroid. As for waste, you've got an entire open moon to put it somewhere. It'll be safe until Al-Queda figures out how to get to the moon.
I saw with the recent advances in solar energy, why not just put some really efficient solar panels up there instead?
Any given point on the moon is in darkness for half a month at a stretch. A permanent moonbase would need some kind of battery to hold you out during that time. The exception is if you put it at one of the poles, but then you need to do an extra burn to land a rocket there.
Because there are no known mechanisms for non-ionizing radiation to cause harm (except thermal damage; cell phones aren't nearly powerful enough for that), the burden of proof is on those claiming that cell phones cause harm. These things have, in fact, been extensively studied, and the majority of studies backup what we expect from a general understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum: cell phone signals don't cause harm. The few studies showing problems can be simply dismissed as outliers.
The best way to move forward is to toss the issue.
It's interesting in that some expressions are universal due to a biological basis, but some are cultural. Previously, some anthropologists assumed they were all cultural, but this has been shown otherwise. See the work of Paul Ekman.
Yeah, there's no better alternatives to using powerline networking. It's not like you can buy CAT6 at Home Depot, or anything.
Unlike the buggy whip people, Ham operators have constantly come up with new stuff, like figuring out how to make shortwaves go across an ocean. Powerline networking, OTOH, is a cheap stopgap solution that's better done by laying dedicated cable or setting aside radio frequencies for the task.
That's why you don't do pseudo-random numbers, but real randomness from thermal noise or shot noise or some other quantum effect (cats and lava lamps don't fit on ICs).
A small radiation source/detector, like the ones in smoke detectors, can work just fine for this purpose. Since radiation is the result of quantum interactions, the output is truly random due to the nature of the universe.
There are CPUs (or more often, chipsets) that provide RNGs, along with a few other hardware implementations of crypto algorithms. Most of them are meant for smaller computers, though, like the VIA C3. I wish they were more widespread and used.
I'm not aware of confirmed exoplanets around alpha cenauri. If you want to do this, it's going to have to be a more general mission to explore the system up close without assuming the existence of planetary bodies.
Then which do you think is more likely to pay off, in terms of that summed value: Mars exploration, or (for example) the eradication of poverty? It would take a pretty damn amazing side-benefit from a Mars trip to outweigh the benefits I'd expect from eradicating poverty, or cancer, or unsustainable environmental pollution.
Which would be relevent, if anybody had a good idea on how $200 billion could be used to eradicate poverty, or even ten or a hundred times that. We do, in fact, have lots of ideas on using $200 billion to go to Mars.
What you get with a manned space program over focusing on more specific problems is side benefits which are difficult to quantify before hand. I could list off some potential benefits, but I have a feeling you've both heard them all before and will pass them off as too abstract or theoretical. Further, it will be woefully incomplete, both because of known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
If we're going to stick to the abstract anyway (and at this point, we have no choice), then it is sufficient to say that any exercise to push the limits of abilities will provide benefits completely unforeseen at the start, and that a manned space program represents the pinnacle in what we can do in pushing frontiers for the foreseeable future.
This, I believe, is the under-appreciated crux of Kennedy's statement.
In terms of Delta-V, as far as putting things on the surface is concerned, Mars is actually closer because you can use aerobraking. If you just want to get into orbit, then the Moon is obviously easier, but I don't think the point is to wave as we go past.
The challenges aren't necessarily the same. The environment of Mars isn't so far off from the more extreme environments on earth (like deserts or frozen tundras), so we can test a lot of equipment right here and now. Further, with no wind to shave down its barbed edges, lunar dust is nasty stuff that sticks like velcro and probably has very bad effects on equipment and the human respiratory system.
Iran can't possibly create a fighter that operates close to the F-22. Their current airforce is a bunch of Tomcats sold to them by the US in the '70s (which were ironically shot down by the US in the '80s). The Tomcat's swing-wing design is rather maintenance heavy, and Iran is having trouble getting replacement parts.
Even if Iran can scrounge up the funds to buy some new jets, even Russia might have second thoughts about doing so. The only way this would change is if the current politcal upheaval ends up with a major overhaul of the system, in which case we'd probably be looking at a much more peaceful Iran, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, a lot of this just seems silly and nitpicky. He doesn't even bring out the really big ones, like measuring speed in parsecs, the complete lack of railings around giant drops, and how "R2D2" and "C3PO" are too short to be unique identifiers in a huge, galaxy-wide society with lots of droids around.
I don't like your facts getting in the way of a good joke.
What these personal projects usually miss is that it's not enough to just be able to build the thing in your garage. It has to be economical to produce it on an assembly line, and also has to fit government safety standards and emissions controls.
You can make any old car get at least a 10mpg bump just by knocking off all the stuff you don't technically need to drive it around (air bags, sound proofing, padded seats, stereo, air con, etc.). Doesn't mean anyone would buy it, or even be allowed to buy it.
IIRC, Mercedes put urine on the catalytic converter. Which contains a lot of ammonia, yes.
So basically, Mercedes peed on your cat.
Diesel-electrics are used in trains for torque conversions, not efficiency. The gears in a traditional transmission would need to be too big to handle the job. For long cruising, hybrids show little to no improvement over pure diesel.
Diesel has higher compression ratios, and is therefore more efficient.
Not sure what kind of grow lights you're thinking of, but since plants can grow just fine under a combination of monocrome red and blue, LED grow lights can be extremely effective. A 1W LED array goes a long way.
Chances are, it'll already be on the moon and working before astronauts even get there. This is not the first nuclear-based energy source NASA has launched.
We'll just bottle that knowledge away, then, perhaps to keep the Genie company.
Assume a short definition of "never".
We can reasonably expect to find a source of uranium on the moon or a passing asteroid. As for waste, you've got an entire open moon to put it somewhere. It'll be safe until Al-Queda figures out how to get to the moon.
I saw with the recent advances in solar energy, why not just put some really efficient solar panels up there instead?
Any given point on the moon is in darkness for half a month at a stretch. A permanent moonbase would need some kind of battery to hold you out during that time. The exception is if you put it at one of the poles, but then you need to do an extra burn to land a rocket there.
Because there are no known mechanisms for non-ionizing radiation to cause harm (except thermal damage; cell phones aren't nearly powerful enough for that), the burden of proof is on those claiming that cell phones cause harm. These things have, in fact, been extensively studied, and the majority of studies backup what we expect from a general understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum: cell phone signals don't cause harm. The few studies showing problems can be simply dismissed as outliers.
The best way to move forward is to toss the issue.
It's interesting in that some expressions are universal due to a biological basis, but some are cultural. Previously, some anthropologists assumed they were all cultural, but this has been shown otherwise. See the work of Paul Ekman.
Yeah, there's no better alternatives to using powerline networking. It's not like you can buy CAT6 at Home Depot, or anything.
Unlike the buggy whip people, Ham operators have constantly come up with new stuff, like figuring out how to make shortwaves go across an ocean. Powerline networking, OTOH, is a cheap stopgap solution that's better done by laying dedicated cable or setting aside radio frequencies for the task.
That's why you don't do pseudo-random numbers, but real randomness from thermal noise or shot noise or some other quantum effect (cats and lava lamps don't fit on ICs).
A small radiation source/detector, like the ones in smoke detectors, can work just fine for this purpose. Since radiation is the result of quantum interactions, the output is truly random due to the nature of the universe.
There are CPUs (or more often, chipsets) that provide RNGs, along with a few other hardware implementations of crypto algorithms. Most of them are meant for smaller computers, though, like the VIA C3. I wish they were more widespread and used.
I'm not aware of confirmed exoplanets around alpha cenauri. If you want to do this, it's going to have to be a more general mission to explore the system up close without assuming the existence of planetary bodies.
Then which do you think is more likely to pay off, in terms of that summed value: Mars exploration, or (for example) the eradication of poverty? It would take a pretty damn amazing side-benefit from a Mars trip to outweigh the benefits I'd expect from eradicating poverty, or cancer, or unsustainable environmental pollution.
Which would be relevent, if anybody had a good idea on how $200 billion could be used to eradicate poverty, or even ten or a hundred times that. We do, in fact, have lots of ideas on using $200 billion to go to Mars.
What you get with a manned space program over focusing on more specific problems is side benefits which are difficult to quantify before hand. I could list off some potential benefits, but I have a feeling you've both heard them all before and will pass them off as too abstract or theoretical. Further, it will be woefully incomplete, both because of known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
If we're going to stick to the abstract anyway (and at this point, we have no choice), then it is sufficient to say that any exercise to push the limits of abilities will provide benefits completely unforeseen at the start, and that a manned space program represents the pinnacle in what we can do in pushing frontiers for the foreseeable future.
This, I believe, is the under-appreciated crux of Kennedy's statement.
In terms of Delta-V, as far as putting things on the surface is concerned, Mars is actually closer because you can use aerobraking. If you just want to get into orbit, then the Moon is obviously easier, but I don't think the point is to wave as we go past.
The challenges aren't necessarily the same. The environment of Mars isn't so far off from the more extreme environments on earth (like deserts or frozen tundras), so we can test a lot of equipment right here and now. Further, with no wind to shave down its barbed edges, lunar dust is nasty stuff that sticks like velcro and probably has very bad effects on equipment and the human respiratory system.
We don't send people out there because it's easy. We do it because it's hard.
Don't use solar sails. Use nuclear pulse thrusters. Those same probes could be sending back images within our lifetimes.
[citation needed]
Iran can't possibly create a fighter that operates close to the F-22. Their current airforce is a bunch of Tomcats sold to them by the US in the '70s (which were ironically shot down by the US in the '80s). The Tomcat's swing-wing design is rather maintenance heavy, and Iran is having trouble getting replacement parts.
Even if Iran can scrounge up the funds to buy some new jets, even Russia might have second thoughts about doing so. The only way this would change is if the current politcal upheaval ends up with a major overhaul of the system, in which case we'd probably be looking at a much more peaceful Iran, anyway.
So one F22 (properly maintained and competently piloted) is equal to how many old F16s?
Many. In war games, single F-22s often take out entire squadrons of F-16s before they're even seen on radar.
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831