They should not be interfering with foreign affairs, anymore than we would want the EU to assassinate a Governor (Schwarzenegger for example) and install somebody the EU likes better.
So....they should interfere in foreign affairs as quickly and often as possible? ... ...
I kid, I kid. Arnie's alright. Besides, it makes little difference since he is invincible anyways. =)
Yeah, I knew about the Iridium contract. I am excited for it. However, I will be more excited to see the actual launches taking place and SpaceX posting profits.
See (you may already know all this), SpaceX isn't the first commercial space venture out there. Other companies have tried to do the cheap commercial launch thing and failed (albeit, they did it very differently than SpaceX). For instance, both the Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were supposed to provide what SpaceX is now trying to provide (cheap, accessible space on board a launch vehicle). Unfortunately, those two vehicles have, since, failed to be cheap. Similarly, Sealaunch offered a unique GEO access platform for commercial use. They also failed financially in an epic manner (they are currently recovering from bankruptcy). All three of those companies had various contracts signed that they waved around declaring it was proof that their launch platforms would be great business opportunities to invest in at one time. All three of those companies have, since, failed to provide cheap access to space. Now, I do realize all four vehicles being discussed fill various niches that the others don't. However, my point is that SpaceX has a contract that will earn it a lot of money if all goes according to plan. If that doesn't happen, potential customers may start investing in other platforms. With other customers earning business, SpaceX's profit-margin would 'sink' from it's theoretical maximum and it may not be able to turn over a decent profit to achieve it's engineering goals.
Now, I don't say any of this to be pessimistic. I am rooting for SpaceX every step of the way, and I think they have the engineering and business know-how to get their goals accomplished. However, until I see those Iridium sats sitting on orbit, and money being transferred to SpaceX's accounts that exceed it's development loans, I will remain fearful that Musk and his team's high ambitions could get muddled by outside influences (ahem, Congress, ahem).
The point is, the sooner SpaceX can point and laugh at Congress when they decrease the available funds to NASA for helping to develop commercial platforms, the better....IMHO.
First off, I have to say that SpaceX announcing they have the intention and potential designs for a Saturn-class lifter is some of the most exciting news I've heard about space in my lifetime (yes, I'm a post 70's child).
However, there is one key thing that SpaceX needs as they develop as a company. First, and foremost, SpaceX needs to get its LEO business to become lucrative and profitable. If that company can develop enough profit to start breaking away from NASA prize money and other political tie-ins, then they will be set. I have not doubt in my mind that the engineers at SpaceX can deliver what they advocate in this article if they are given the money and opportunity to do so. However, I also have little doubt that folks at the various NASA labs could do the same thing. The key advantage that SpaceX has, over NASA, however, is that it has the potential to be independent of Congress fucking about in it's vehicle designs. That, above all else, is what makes SpaceX special.
If SpaceX can break it's ties from the government through contracts and cheap launches, then we will be to Mars in my lifetime. However, if they get roped into the political games that so many defense contractors and other space companies do, then America is screwed for a mission to Mars. Right now, the single greatest threat to space explorations is the United States Congress. It really is that simple.
If there is anything we humans enjoy more than watching an underdog rise to the top, it's watching that same underdog fall from grace once it's gotten there.
Hey! The first computery thing I ever did with a computer was take a LOGO class as an extracurricular thing when I was in third or fourth grade or so. I haven't heard that language mentioned since then. I figured it was some sort of novelty program that died off as I got older or something. I can tell you, however, that if it hadn't been for that class, I wouldn't have ever understood why computers could be so cool. Up until fiddling with that language, I just figured computers were expensive video game consoles.
You could use Yahoo, sure. Personally I prefer some of the smaller search engines. DuckDuckGo has been my recent favorite as it seems to return a lot of very relevant hits and it has some cool search modifiers built into it. There is also a British one I like, Startpage that tends to return less relevant stuff, but is still very good for some things.
You could use Yahoo, sure. Personally I prefer some of the smaller search engines. DuckDuckGo has been my recent favorite as it seems to return a lot of very relevant hits and it has some cool search modifiers built into it. There is also a British one I like, Startpage that tends to return less relevant stuff, but is still very good for some things.
You could use Yahoo, sure. Personally I prefer some of the smaller search engines. DuckDuckGo has been my recent favorite as it seems to return a lot of very relevant hits and it has some cool search modifiers built into it. There is also a British one I like, Startpage that tends to return less relevant stuff, but is still very good for some things.
Yeah, I'll second this. I am living in a place with an HOA right now and a neighborhood watch. The neghborhood watch is great. They help keep my nice car safe in the parking lot. The HOA, however, has managed to threaten me with various legal actions for two years now over trivial things. For example, they threatened to push "sex offender charges" against me for jogging without a shirt on. They threatened to fine my unit $2,000 because there were 2 weeds in my front porch that were more than 4 inches tall (I measured, they were actually 4.1 and 3.7 inches). They threatened to have me evicted because I installed a pull up bar under my front balcony. They have insisted, time and again, that I am poisoning the drinking water every time I wash my car (with the same dish soap they wash down they drain when they wash the dishes, and so on).
There are quite a few more examples, but I think you get the point. HOA's really are a problem in some parts of the States. I manage to get through it all because I can afford a lawyer that writes them nasty worded letters when they do something completely stupid. However, some of my friendlier neighbors that aren't earning as much can't afford a lawyer and have bent over backwards for the HOA just because they don't know what else to do. The worst part is, if you go to one of the HOA meetings and try to get involved, you garner nothing more than condescending remarks and sneers from a bunch of pissed off, lonely old cat ladies that have nothing better to do with their time than spy on their neighbors. No matter how rational, or sound, your particular point of view might be, there's just no breaking the "old girl's club" mentality that goes on in an HOA. Furthermore, courts have, consistently, ruled in favor of HOA's rather than tenants in most cases that actually make it that far, so you are left with very few options.
I'll agree with the OP that the rest of the rant seems....odd...but the HOA concern is legit. Those damn organizations should be considered criminal.
That's kind of an odd assertion you make about MMA. I will give you that a lot of the folks that are way into MMA are semi-retarded douchebags, but that doesn't mean that the upswing in popularity of MMA in anyway indicates a recent surge in violence. Boxing, for instance (in many forms) has been around as a competitive sport for far longer than MMA ever was. Boxing rarely, if ever, is taught with any of the self-discipline, respect, etc. that is more commonly taught in martial arts from Asia. So does that mean that boxing, having been around for more than a century, is indicative of a trend of growing violence in society for more than 100 years?
There are other martial arts out there, too, that do not involve the, I dunno, I guess, spiritual(?) aspects of traditional Asian martial arts. Systema is a Russian martial art that is deadly and dangerous as hell, and it has little to do with self-respect and such. Pinning MMA as an indication that society is growing more accepting of violence seems like a stretch. MMA is a fad because it appeals to a lot of folks that don't know how to compete with each other in any manner other than violence. But if MMA weren't there, those same folks would be happy to find some other flagship of competition through which to express themselves ("Pro wrestling," football, hockey, whatever).
Now, if you want to try to argue that people are becoming increasingly accepting of violence, well, that's an argument that could be made but, personally, I think would be hard to back up. From what I can tell, most folk are more afraid of violence today (save for in movies) than ever in the past. Either way, thought, I think MMA is just a modern trend that is getting a lot of publicity because it makes money, but I wouldn't ascribe any meaning to that trend beyond testosterone flooded guys enjoying each other's sweaty company.
On one final note, I'd suggest you take a look into some of the comments made by Forest Griffin (a UFC fighter) as well as his book. That might do a bit to show you that MMA isn't just about the violence and trying to hurt each other.
I'm curious, what kind of evidence have you seen that backs up that assertion? From what I can tell, peace just makes people antsy and willing to do stupid shit, violence included.
Generally when satellites attitude control systems fail, they don't immediately start spinning like crazy, probably just a few degrees per minute.
Okay, I'll give you that. But I disagree on the assertion that you won't have much of a moment arm. The general size of these balloons that we are talking about is "about the size of a football field deployed." Now, when this thing first gets deployed, then yes, it will probably generate a very small moment arm. However, as it starts to expand, "about the size of a football field" implies that the center of gravity of this one component is going to start to reach ~ 50 yards, which is probably something like, what, 35 meters or so? Even if the balloon and it's occupant gasses only have a few ounces of force being enacted on them (which, in low-mid LEO, they most certainly won't), that is a few ounces being applied somewhere ~35 meters from your spacecraft's CG (which, of course, will migrate as this item deploys). You will still have a very large moment arm and a decently sized moment. Take, for instance, the fact that some of the larger solar arrays (and yes, I know they are heavier) can start to brush the "football field" size area (and they are, mostly, 2-D) and think of the motors and damping systems that have to be attached to them (not to mention over-sizing the reaction wheels to help fight such an awkward shape). Now, you may not need to oversize the wheels for this particular balloon because you are deorbiting, but you will be stressing the spacecraft bus pretty significantly one way or another. Now, does that mean it can't be done? No. I just am not sure that it really buys you any advantage over having a simpler non-inflatable tethering mechanism.
My point isn't that this system is impossible to use, any aero-engineer worth his salt could crack out a design using one of these things that meets mission specs. My point is that I would wager a simpler sail type mechanism would decrease the cost (less material, mass, complexity) and the risk without sacrificing much EOM performance. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I would be surprised if I was.
One other thing, if it's the spherical, 3-D shape that you want, because it will increase drag in all vectors, I am not sure that a deployable 3-D sail couldn't do the same thing for less money (no inflation mechanism) by simply using some clever folding techniques. Think of the planar representation of a 3 axis coordinate system. Now imagine that the three intersecting planes were some very thin sail material. If some of the seems between the three planes were connected, and some weren't you could fold this shape down pretty easily and it could still be deployed simply by letting it loose and letting momentum do it's thing (albeit will be a tad more complicated than that). Again, you have the advantage of not having to carry an extra canister of gas for inflation, and it could give you the same drag properties of the balloon. Again, will this be better? I'm not sure. But it could have some advantages over a balloon.
If you've lost control of your spacecraft before it begins it's deorbit maneuver, chances are any system you put on there is going to have a hell of a hard time getting it to deorbit appropriately. Even if you start to inflate this giant spherical balloon after you've lost the ability to point your spacecraft, due to loss of reaction wheels or some other such thing, you are going to be trying to deploy a very large moment arm in an unpredictable/unknowable dynamic scenario (in other words, your rates and attitude will be completely unknown). This is going to inflict some pretty heavy structural loads on your spacecraft, primarily where the deployment system connects to the bus. As such, if you are trying to deploy this giant balloon in anything but the designed for performance envelope, you run the very real risk of tearing the deployment mechanism, and, hence, balloon from the bus, or failing catastrophically in some other manner, which would be completely counter-productive to your attempt to deorbit in the first place.
In short, deploying something this large is not something you just get to do no matter how your spacecraft is behaving. Like any other deorbit scenario, this balloon is going to have a performance criterion requirement that it must be designed for: "At end of mission you must be able to control your spacecraft within X, Y, and Z parameters in order to ensure successful deployment of giant balloon." You will have a similar mission requirement for any other deorbit profile, including a large sail. Now, I will give that those mission requirements might be a bit more lenient for the giant balloon (and I stress might), but I would much rather see a comprehensive trade study that sheds some light on whether or not this theoretical relaxation of mission requirements buys you any performance, fuel-margin, or mass throughout your mission. And I would want to see them compared against the increased complexity of using a balloon deployment as opposed to a tether or sail deployment.
Don't get me wrong, if the fella in the article has done such studies and shown that it will likely increase mission performance, then whether or not I think this is weird, we will see a giant balloon flying on a mission eventually. However, right now this seems like an interesting concept that doesn't seem like it would bring a whole lot to any given mission to me. This speculation is based off little more than my own personal knowledge of deorbiting spacecraft, which is part of the mission analysis that I do for a living.
I don't see why it needs to be an inflatable balloon. If the goal is to produce drag to decrease your orbit until reentry, why not just deploy a very large, football field sized tether and sail to the back. The material demonstrated by the Ikaros mission for use in a solar sail could do something like this. Carrying an inflatable balloon and the gas necessary to inflate it seems like over-complicating the very simple goal of increasing drag. As for deployment, tethers can do some pretty cool deployments simply by using the angular momentum of a spacecraft over a very long, slow, rotation maneuver.
So, what kind of marker do I need to purchase to leave a few messages of what I think about the TSA on my special parts next time I go through the airport?
In the article linked your spokesperson discussed the primary uses of a product like this being in solar thermoelectric farms. Did you guys ever consider what applications this technology might have on spacecraft? One of the biggest pain in the asses to deal with when designing a satellite is dumping all of the excess thermal energy off the dark side of the solar arrays (without it radiating into the rest of your spacecraft). If these solar cells actually get more efficient as they heat up, then less thermal energy would need to be radiated and that could be a really big boom for inner-solar-system spacecraft power sources.
So I am curious, have you guys actually created any solar cells that use this technology? And if so, how do they compare, mass-wise, to conventional photovoltaic cells. In other words, what kind of W/kg numbers should we expect to see?
Also, the article mentioned that, at peak efficiency, you would be producing something like 50% to 60% efficiency. Last time I checked out Emcor and Spectrolab products I was finding triple junction photovoltaic cells that were able to function in the high twenties/low thirties efficiency range. Do you think an actual, space hardened product based on your technology could compete?
Finally, in terms of lifetime, I know conventional photovoltaic cells degrade in efficiency over a long lifespan (10 - 20 years). What kind of lifespans should we expect to see for a product based on your tech?
There are studies that show that christian couples have more and better sex than non-christian couples, even, gasp, those that waited until they were married.
I'd like to see those studies that you're referring to, please.
Perl6, OTOH, is almost a completely different language from Perl5
So you've never known anyone to learn and work in two similar languages? Personally, perl 5 is my staple tool for developing data and text processing applications at work. However, I also do a lot of hacking in Python and sh (including heavy use of sed, awk, and grep) because, well, they are sometimes more convenient to work in for different things. Just because they are similar, but different, doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't bother learning them all.
When it comes to perl 6, I realize that it is basically a different language than perl 5. That said, I will continue to program and maintain my work in perl 5 where it makes sense to do so. However, the driving reason that I use perl 5 as my primary language is the general philosophy displayed by the language. The overall quirkiness and linguistics-centric nature of the language make it both enjoyable and interesting to work in, for me. I am wagering that the designers of perl 6 tried to keep some of the perl 5 cultural and philosophical elements of the language when writing the new language (at least it sounds like they did based on what I've read so far). That said, I intend to start learning perl 6 slowly, and trying out some new stuff with them just like when I picked up perl 5 the first time. If I like it and find a use for it, I will keep learning both perl 5 and perl 6. If, however, I decide that it is clunky, does not get done what I need it to get done, and is an all around pain in the ass to work with, I will probably just stick with perl 5.
So the moral of the story is: Yes, it is new and different. That doesn't mean it's bad. It might be totally awesome like Perl 5 was (for me). So Perl 5 coders may as well try it out and see what they think.
A) A total stock market crash?
B) The unintentional creation of a true, maniacal AI?
C) The Singularity?
D) The decoding and translation of the Voynich manuscript?
E) A/b/ tard winning the Nobel Prize?
F) All of the above?
That's a good point regarding momentum dumping. I am also curious about what kind of pointing accuracy they could acquire with this method as the primary attitude control system. Apparently, it works well enough to steer the spacecraft over long, gradual thrust maneuvers, but I would be very surprised (pleasantly so) if it could achieve the kind of pointing accuracy that reaction wheels give...or hell, even spin stabilization. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
Meh, I prefer the advice of Malcolm Reynolds for subjects like this:
I aim to misbehave.
Sure, if you want to be safe and comfortable, then what you offer is sound, good advice. If you want to fix something in the 'verse, though, you're going to have to take risks.
Slashdot Mirror
They should not be interfering with foreign affairs, anymore than we would want the EU to assassinate a Governor (Schwarzenegger for example) and install somebody the EU likes better.
So....they should interfere in foreign affairs as quickly and often as possible?
...
...
I kid, I kid. Arnie's alright. Besides, it makes little difference since he is invincible anyways. =)
Yeah, I knew about the Iridium contract. I am excited for it. However, I will be more excited to see the actual launches taking place and SpaceX posting profits.
See (you may already know all this), SpaceX isn't the first commercial space venture out there. Other companies have tried to do the cheap commercial launch thing and failed (albeit, they did it very differently than SpaceX). For instance, both the Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were supposed to provide what SpaceX is now trying to provide (cheap, accessible space on board a launch vehicle). Unfortunately, those two vehicles have, since, failed to be cheap. Similarly, Sealaunch offered a unique GEO access platform for commercial use. They also failed financially in an epic manner (they are currently recovering from bankruptcy). All three of those companies had various contracts signed that they waved around declaring it was proof that their launch platforms would be great business opportunities to invest in at one time. All three of those companies have, since, failed to provide cheap access to space. Now, I do realize all four vehicles being discussed fill various niches that the others don't. However, my point is that SpaceX has a contract that will earn it a lot of money if all goes according to plan. If that doesn't happen, potential customers may start investing in other platforms. With other customers earning business, SpaceX's profit-margin would 'sink' from it's theoretical maximum and it may not be able to turn over a decent profit to achieve it's engineering goals.
Now, I don't say any of this to be pessimistic. I am rooting for SpaceX every step of the way, and I think they have the engineering and business know-how to get their goals accomplished. However, until I see those Iridium sats sitting on orbit, and money being transferred to SpaceX's accounts that exceed it's development loans, I will remain fearful that Musk and his team's high ambitions could get muddled by outside influences (ahem, Congress, ahem).
The point is, the sooner SpaceX can point and laugh at Congress when they decrease the available funds to NASA for helping to develop commercial platforms, the better....IMHO.
First off, I have to say that SpaceX announcing they have the intention and potential designs for a Saturn-class lifter is some of the most exciting news I've heard about space in my lifetime (yes, I'm a post 70's child).
However, there is one key thing that SpaceX needs as they develop as a company. First, and foremost, SpaceX needs to get its LEO business to become lucrative and profitable. If that company can develop enough profit to start breaking away from NASA prize money and other political tie-ins, then they will be set. I have not doubt in my mind that the engineers at SpaceX can deliver what they advocate in this article if they are given the money and opportunity to do so. However, I also have little doubt that folks at the various NASA labs could do the same thing. The key advantage that SpaceX has, over NASA, however, is that it has the potential to be independent of Congress fucking about in it's vehicle designs. That, above all else, is what makes SpaceX special.
If SpaceX can break it's ties from the government through contracts and cheap launches, then we will be to Mars in my lifetime. However, if they get roped into the political games that so many defense contractors and other space companies do, then America is screwed for a mission to Mars. Right now, the single greatest threat to space explorations is the United States Congress. It really is that simple.
If there is anything we humans enjoy more than watching an underdog rise to the top, it's watching that same underdog fall from grace once it's gotten there.
Sorry for the triple post, Slashdot melted down on me earlier and some funny stuff happened >
Hey! The first computery thing I ever did with a computer was take a LOGO class as an extracurricular thing when I was in third or fourth grade or so. I haven't heard that language mentioned since then. I figured it was some sort of novelty program that died off as I got older or something. I can tell you, however, that if it hadn't been for that class, I wouldn't have ever understood why computers could be so cool. Up until fiddling with that language, I just figured computers were expensive video game consoles.
Thanks for the chance to reminisce!
You could use Yahoo, sure. Personally I prefer some of the smaller search engines. DuckDuckGo has been my recent favorite as it seems to return a lot of very relevant hits and it has some cool search modifiers built into it. There is also a British one I like, Startpage that tends to return less relevant stuff, but is still very good for some things.
You could use Yahoo, sure. Personally I prefer some of the smaller search engines. DuckDuckGo has been my recent favorite as it seems to return a lot of very relevant hits and it has some cool search modifiers built into it. There is also a British one I like, Startpage that tends to return less relevant stuff, but is still very good for some things.
You could use Yahoo, sure. Personally I prefer some of the smaller search engines. DuckDuckGo has been my recent favorite as it seems to return a lot of very relevant hits and it has some cool search modifiers built into it. There is also a British one I like, Startpage that tends to return less relevant stuff, but is still very good for some things.
Yeah, I'll second this. I am living in a place with an HOA right now and a neighborhood watch. The neghborhood watch is great. They help keep my nice car safe in the parking lot. The HOA, however, has managed to threaten me with various legal actions for two years now over trivial things. For example, they threatened to push "sex offender charges" against me for jogging without a shirt on. They threatened to fine my unit $2,000 because there were 2 weeds in my front porch that were more than 4 inches tall (I measured, they were actually 4.1 and 3.7 inches). They threatened to have me evicted because I installed a pull up bar under my front balcony. They have insisted, time and again, that I am poisoning the drinking water every time I wash my car (with the same dish soap they wash down they drain when they wash the dishes, and so on).
There are quite a few more examples, but I think you get the point. HOA's really are a problem in some parts of the States. I manage to get through it all because I can afford a lawyer that writes them nasty worded letters when they do something completely stupid. However, some of my friendlier neighbors that aren't earning as much can't afford a lawyer and have bent over backwards for the HOA just because they don't know what else to do. The worst part is, if you go to one of the HOA meetings and try to get involved, you garner nothing more than condescending remarks and sneers from a bunch of pissed off, lonely old cat ladies that have nothing better to do with their time than spy on their neighbors. No matter how rational, or sound, your particular point of view might be, there's just no breaking the "old girl's club" mentality that goes on in an HOA. Furthermore, courts have, consistently, ruled in favor of HOA's rather than tenants in most cases that actually make it that far, so you are left with very few options.
I'll agree with the OP that the rest of the rant seems....odd...but the HOA concern is legit. Those damn organizations should be considered criminal.
That's kind of an odd assertion you make about MMA. I will give you that a lot of the folks that are way into MMA are semi-retarded douchebags, but that doesn't mean that the upswing in popularity of MMA in anyway indicates a recent surge in violence. Boxing, for instance (in many forms) has been around as a competitive sport for far longer than MMA ever was. Boxing rarely, if ever, is taught with any of the self-discipline, respect, etc. that is more commonly taught in martial arts from Asia. So does that mean that boxing, having been around for more than a century, is indicative of a trend of growing violence in society for more than 100 years?
There are other martial arts out there, too, that do not involve the, I dunno, I guess, spiritual(?) aspects of traditional Asian martial arts. Systema is a Russian martial art that is deadly and dangerous as hell, and it has little to do with self-respect and such. Pinning MMA as an indication that society is growing more accepting of violence seems like a stretch. MMA is a fad because it appeals to a lot of folks that don't know how to compete with each other in any manner other than violence. But if MMA weren't there, those same folks would be happy to find some other flagship of competition through which to express themselves ("Pro wrestling," football, hockey, whatever).
Now, if you want to try to argue that people are becoming increasingly accepting of violence, well, that's an argument that could be made but, personally, I think would be hard to back up. From what I can tell, most folk are more afraid of violence today (save for in movies) than ever in the past. Either way, thought, I think MMA is just a modern trend that is getting a lot of publicity because it makes money, but I wouldn't ascribe any meaning to that trend beyond testosterone flooded guys enjoying each other's sweaty company.
On one final note, I'd suggest you take a look into some of the comments made by Forest Griffin (a UFC fighter) as well as his book. That might do a bit to show you that MMA isn't just about the violence and trying to hurt each other.
Peace brings more peace,
I'm curious, what kind of evidence have you seen that backs up that assertion? From what I can tell, peace just makes people antsy and willing to do stupid shit, violence included.
Generally when satellites attitude control systems fail, they don't immediately start spinning like crazy, probably just a few degrees per minute.
Okay, I'll give you that. But I disagree on the assertion that you won't have much of a moment arm. The general size of these balloons that we are talking about is "about the size of a football field deployed." Now, when this thing first gets deployed, then yes, it will probably generate a very small moment arm. However, as it starts to expand, "about the size of a football field" implies that the center of gravity of this one component is going to start to reach ~ 50 yards, which is probably something like, what, 35 meters or so? Even if the balloon and it's occupant gasses only have a few ounces of force being enacted on them (which, in low-mid LEO, they most certainly won't), that is a few ounces being applied somewhere ~35 meters from your spacecraft's CG (which, of course, will migrate as this item deploys). You will still have a very large moment arm and a decently sized moment. Take, for instance, the fact that some of the larger solar arrays (and yes, I know they are heavier) can start to brush the "football field" size area (and they are, mostly, 2-D) and think of the motors and damping systems that have to be attached to them (not to mention over-sizing the reaction wheels to help fight such an awkward shape). Now, you may not need to oversize the wheels for this particular balloon because you are deorbiting, but you will be stressing the spacecraft bus pretty significantly one way or another. Now, does that mean it can't be done? No. I just am not sure that it really buys you any advantage over having a simpler non-inflatable tethering mechanism.
My point isn't that this system is impossible to use, any aero-engineer worth his salt could crack out a design using one of these things that meets mission specs. My point is that I would wager a simpler sail type mechanism would decrease the cost (less material, mass, complexity) and the risk without sacrificing much EOM performance. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I would be surprised if I was.
One other thing, if it's the spherical, 3-D shape that you want, because it will increase drag in all vectors, I am not sure that a deployable 3-D sail couldn't do the same thing for less money (no inflation mechanism) by simply using some clever folding techniques. Think of the planar representation of a 3 axis coordinate system. Now imagine that the three intersecting planes were some very thin sail material. If some of the seems between the three planes were connected, and some weren't you could fold this shape down pretty easily and it could still be deployed simply by letting it loose and letting momentum do it's thing (albeit will be a tad more complicated than that). Again, you have the advantage of not having to carry an extra canister of gas for inflation, and it could give you the same drag properties of the balloon. Again, will this be better? I'm not sure. But it could have some advantages over a balloon.
If you've lost control of your spacecraft before it begins it's deorbit maneuver, chances are any system you put on there is going to have a hell of a hard time getting it to deorbit appropriately. Even if you start to inflate this giant spherical balloon after you've lost the ability to point your spacecraft, due to loss of reaction wheels or some other such thing, you are going to be trying to deploy a very large moment arm in an unpredictable/unknowable dynamic scenario (in other words, your rates and attitude will be completely unknown). This is going to inflict some pretty heavy structural loads on your spacecraft, primarily where the deployment system connects to the bus. As such, if you are trying to deploy this giant balloon in anything but the designed for performance envelope, you run the very real risk of tearing the deployment mechanism, and, hence, balloon from the bus, or failing catastrophically in some other manner, which would be completely counter-productive to your attempt to deorbit in the first place.
In short, deploying something this large is not something you just get to do no matter how your spacecraft is behaving. Like any other deorbit scenario, this balloon is going to have a performance criterion requirement that it must be designed for: "At end of mission you must be able to control your spacecraft within X, Y, and Z parameters in order to ensure successful deployment of giant balloon." You will have a similar mission requirement for any other deorbit profile, including a large sail. Now, I will give that those mission requirements might be a bit more lenient for the giant balloon (and I stress might), but I would much rather see a comprehensive trade study that sheds some light on whether or not this theoretical relaxation of mission requirements buys you any performance, fuel-margin, or mass throughout your mission. And I would want to see them compared against the increased complexity of using a balloon deployment as opposed to a tether or sail deployment.
Don't get me wrong, if the fella in the article has done such studies and shown that it will likely increase mission performance, then whether or not I think this is weird, we will see a giant balloon flying on a mission eventually. However, right now this seems like an interesting concept that doesn't seem like it would bring a whole lot to any given mission to me. This speculation is based off little more than my own personal knowledge of deorbiting spacecraft, which is part of the mission analysis that I do for a living.
I don't see why it needs to be an inflatable balloon. If the goal is to produce drag to decrease your orbit until reentry, why not just deploy a very large, football field sized tether and sail to the back. The material demonstrated by the Ikaros mission for use in a solar sail could do something like this. Carrying an inflatable balloon and the gas necessary to inflate it seems like over-complicating the very simple goal of increasing drag. As for deployment, tethers can do some pretty cool deployments simply by using the angular momentum of a spacecraft over a very long, slow, rotation maneuver.
The balloon idea seems weird.
Right Cheek: "If you can read this message,"
Left Cheek: "then your surveillance is too intrusive."
So, what kind of marker do I need to purchase to leave a few messages of what I think about the TSA on my special parts next time I go through the airport?
I protest to the irresponsible depiction of the personal user here! I doubt any personal user could spell 'pretty' correctly two times in a row.
In the article linked your spokesperson discussed the primary uses of a product like this being in solar thermoelectric farms. Did you guys ever consider what applications this technology might have on spacecraft? One of the biggest pain in the asses to deal with when designing a satellite is dumping all of the excess thermal energy off the dark side of the solar arrays (without it radiating into the rest of your spacecraft). If these solar cells actually get more efficient as they heat up, then less thermal energy would need to be radiated and that could be a really big boom for inner-solar-system spacecraft power sources.
So I am curious, have you guys actually created any solar cells that use this technology? And if so, how do they compare, mass-wise, to conventional photovoltaic cells. In other words, what kind of W/kg numbers should we expect to see?
Also, the article mentioned that, at peak efficiency, you would be producing something like 50% to 60% efficiency. Last time I checked out Emcor and Spectrolab products I was finding triple junction photovoltaic cells that were able to function in the high twenties/low thirties efficiency range. Do you think an actual, space hardened product based on your technology could compete?
Finally, in terms of lifetime, I know conventional photovoltaic cells degrade in efficiency over a long lifespan (10 - 20 years). What kind of lifespans should we expect to see for a product based on your tech?
There are studies that show that christian couples have more and better sex than non-christian couples, even, gasp, those that waited until they were married.
I'd like to see those studies that you're referring to, please.
...Or a bullet....
Perl6, OTOH, is almost a completely different language from Perl5
So you've never known anyone to learn and work in two similar languages? Personally, perl 5 is my staple tool for developing data and text processing applications at work. However, I also do a lot of hacking in Python and sh (including heavy use of sed, awk, and grep) because, well, they are sometimes more convenient to work in for different things. Just because they are similar, but different, doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't bother learning them all.
When it comes to perl 6, I realize that it is basically a different language than perl 5. That said, I will continue to program and maintain my work in perl 5 where it makes sense to do so. However, the driving reason that I use perl 5 as my primary language is the general philosophy displayed by the language. The overall quirkiness and linguistics-centric nature of the language make it both enjoyable and interesting to work in, for me. I am wagering that the designers of perl 6 tried to keep some of the perl 5 cultural and philosophical elements of the language when writing the new language (at least it sounds like they did based on what I've read so far). That said, I intend to start learning perl 6 slowly, and trying out some new stuff with them just like when I picked up perl 5 the first time. If I like it and find a use for it, I will keep learning both perl 5 and perl 6. If, however, I decide that it is clunky, does not get done what I need it to get done, and is an all around pain in the ass to work with, I will probably just stick with perl 5.
So the moral of the story is: Yes, it is new and different. That doesn't mean it's bad. It might be totally awesome like Perl 5 was (for me). So Perl 5 coders may as well try it out and see what they think.
So does this mean tomorrow's headlines be about:
/b/ tard winning the Nobel Prize?
A) A total stock market crash?
B) The unintentional creation of a true, maniacal AI?
C) The Singularity?
D) The decoding and translation of the Voynich manuscript?
E) A
F) All of the above?
That's a good point regarding momentum dumping. I am also curious about what kind of pointing accuracy they could acquire with this method as the primary attitude control system. Apparently, it works well enough to steer the spacecraft over long, gradual thrust maneuvers, but I would be very surprised (pleasantly so) if it could achieve the kind of pointing accuracy that reaction wheels give...or hell, even spin stabilization. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
I aim to misbehave.
Sure, if you want to be safe and comfortable, then what you offer is sound, good advice. If you want to fix something in the 'verse, though, you're going to have to take risks.