Someone at NASA also worked out that you could build a tower 100km tall by using highly pressurized boron balloon tanks as columns. Put an electromagnetic accelerator on top of a series of these, and you have a working space elevator.
How about arrays of electromagnets arranged in the same pattern? We could use super-capacitors to store energy for short periods of time, and get the majority of power from overhead lines.
Basically, the Rotovator stores kinetic energy which is transferred to the cargo being lifted. The Rotovator can be gradually accelerated back to its former speed by very high efficiency engines, like ion engines. This is much more economical than chemical rockets because: 1) the very high exhaust velocities reduce the fuel required by a couple of order of magnitude and 2) you can refuel periodically using the Rotorvator itself.
In addition, power can be beamed to the Rotorvator from the earth using lasers or microwaves, which further reduces the weight of the entire system.
HASTOL stands for Hypersonic Airplane Space Tether Orbital Launch. This was studied by NASA. We currently have a hard time with a winged craft that can make it to orbit. Space elevators also require "Unobtanium" with unattainably high tensile strengths. But if we combine the two, we get something which is both technically feasible and capable of dirt-cheap earth to orbit. Basically, have an aircraft capable of very high altitude, and about half orbital velocity rendevous with a rotating tether (Rotovator) that can take a cargo the rest of the way to orbit.
Halbach Arrays would allow them to build a magnetically levitating train without active control of the magnets. The track would be nothing more than a series of aluminum or copper rings. The levitation doesn't work when the train is stationary, but secondary wheels only designed for low speed on a prepared surface could handle this. (Failure mode away from stations would be for the train to drag its belly. It could be designed to ear up the track, but ensure the passengers safety.) Electromagnetic drag also decreases as the speed of the train increases.
The resulting track and train would both cost a fraction of what they are currently spending. Both the levitation and guide magnets would be totally passive.
The living room is clearly the target of everyone going after the US market. No one has figured out how to make themselves more convenient than cable. Until you figure that out, it doesn't matter how badly cable sucks. Americans are all about the convenience.
Big and fluffy enough, it would enable you to dodge objects blindfolded. If it's big enough, you can stick monofilaments into it, so if you spun around, the filaments would whip around, allowing you to detect (and annoy) others around you. You'd be the whirling blind-sighted disco king!
The ultimate XBox strategy for Microsoft domination of the world (or at least the US) is for it to take over the living room. Start with Anime. Move on to sports. (Isn't the NFL trying to launch its own network?) Comedy Central? They could put a XBox branded YouTube on there. (Just re-skin the browser for YouTube pages.) Start small, even at a loss to Microsoft, but if they play it right, they can grow into a media empire. They could be the next cable, just with shows and series, but no time-slots. They would have targeted advertising, however.
Just reward the user with greater responsiveness if they don't follow-through when they are blocked. Cause the avatar to "pause" when the lightsaber is blocked, and make the pause more pronounced when the user really gets out of sync. Conversely, give them more responsiveness the more they "play nice" or follow what is happening on screen. You can also use this technique to enforce a "speed limit" on how fast the user can swing the Wiimote around, which makes playing safer, and might even improve gameplay. Fights will be more tactical and less twitch. Raising this "speed limit" would be one way of leveling the avatar up.
Building this into the training stages will be easy, and would even improve the narrative of lots of Star Wars and fantasy genre games.
Force feedback is not necessary if you simply reward the player for "following" the movements of the lightsaber and punishing them when they don't. (This includes coming to a stop when it hits something like another lightsaber.) The reward/punishment can take the form of greater responsiveness. For example, if the player doesn't stop their follow-through when they are blocked by another lightsaber, the game could have the avatar pause for a fraction of a second. (In some Star Wars content, Lightsabers are supposed to have some sort of "gyroscopic" effect, so there is some resistance to swinging them.) Part of a character's leveling up could be an increase in the speed the lightsaber is allowed to swing. Or, you could use this as another form of feedback for the player -- the better the player "follows" the lightsaber being blocked, the faster the avatar and lightsaber follows the user's movements.
The white-listing idea is just like Capabilities. That's the sort of security users really need. Security with Capabilities can be mathematically provable.
One 90's electric car startup used a generator on a small trailer. This gave the same benefit as a plug-in hybrid, but without the weight penalty when not in use. If there is a standardized battery module, this might be able to accommodate a fuel tank and a generator with a somewhat smaller battery. I expect that such modules will be quite a bit larger than the average fuel tank, so this could be doable, especially with a gas turbine engine. An attachment on the tail of a car might be better as well.
On second thought, if any technology comes along that makes these things practical, then it would make the plug-in hybrid even more practical anyhow.
Electric cars with a practical range approaching 200 miles would suffice for most of the driving needs of most of the populace. If people could buy the cars, then subscribe to a battery service, this would enable fast battery module swaps. But most of the time, people would just charge overnight at home.
The other 20% would still need some form of internal combustion vehicle for dealing with heavier loads. But this would be much easier to provide with biodiesel than all of the vehicular needs of North America.
Who do I know who's an aerospace engineer? Hmmm. The keyboard player in my band. Does he get out much? He has a blonde hottie wife who has a bunch of hottie friends. And he's in high enough demand that he flies to gigs around the country.
How about thruster modules which can attach to satellites with a standardized mounting system? Then you could extend satellite life by having the old module detach itself and re-enter the atmosphere, letting the new module attach itself in its place. Alternatively, make the standardized mounting capable of supporting at least two modules, so that the old one can stay on and do station-keeping, while the new module docks. Perhaps a ring around the satellite's waist that the modules can clamp themselves to? The thruster modules would depend on the satellite for long term power. The same link that supplies power could also transmit data.
New technologies enable new ways of doing things. TSTO enables us to think of launch vehicles as *vehicles* and not munitions.
Also, I agree with you that we don't need new technologies. I have also seen proposals to simply use the current launch techniques, but with economies of scale and better management. Unfortunately, I don't think this gets us far enough. We also agree that the decrease in cost is currently not enough to spur anyone to pursue it. And again, we agree that the way we're doing things now is not working.
I thought you were saying that there isn't enough demand to get us out of the current situation. Which side are you arguing again?
So, if a service is being implemented as multiple redundant birds, why does *this* require ironclad reliability? Again, your logic is circular. If there are redundant multiple sats, then the loss of any one or two should *not* constitute a loss of service.
About 'hard' circuits and economies of scale - again your logic is circular. The demand is not high. But once you have the capability of launching multiple cheap sats, it will be.
(And you completely miss my point about Google. That was only an example to show that multiple commodity devices with low reliability can fill in for one expensive specialized machine with high reliability, not an analogy about the economic situation.)
Good, so you admit that there are no insurmountable physical constraints that could not be met by economies of scale. You only assert that economies of scale aren't there because demand isn't there. You have also agreed that these economies of scale aren't there because there's no demand. Again, we're back to our vicious cycle. This cycle could be broken by some R&D investment. In fact, I say that it will be. Only a matter of time.
"The problem isn't technology" only from the point of view of certain components we already have. However, a lot of engineering needs to be done to get entirely new types of launch up and running. We know that TSTO can work. Lots of engineering needs to be done to actually get it to work. Once we are there, people will become aware the economic rules for space launch they were playing by no longer apply.
You're right that technology is really not "the problem." Economics is. But until the technological tools that can change the rules are proven, people will keep playing by the old economic rules. This is where some up-front R&D investment will pay off. If things didn't progress this way, then we'd still be using vacuum tubes, only incrementally better and cheaper ones. The new, rules-changing technology of transistors required some up-front R&D investment.
Entirely new ways of launching (TSTO with "pop-up" launch profiles, for example) are very expensive to develop. So the large investment required is a particularly large barrier. But it is not insurmountably large. The price of it is falling as technology advances as well. It will fall sometime.
Uh, you're conflating two statements of mine. One was about 2 hour delivery around the world. If current delivery was proof of demand, then you have an analogous situation today. So by your own statement, there's proven demand there. My second statement was about the costs of the satellites. The reliability requirements are no longer ironclad. If you can have a cheap commodity backup already in place, then you do not need it! (Example: Google servers.)
For your example of undersea cables, you need to show analogous factors. Namely, has the technology for laying (launching) undersea cables advanced? Is there demand to drive the price of the better cable laying technology? Has the price of the better cable laying technology reached a threshold where cheap redundant cables can be in place? And finally, are there other technologies that make cables less valuable, which would confound your analogy?
Also, your logic is partly circular. Reliability requirements are ironclad, in part because those birds are expensive, and they are expensive in part because the reliability requirements are ironclad. What if reliability is not ironclad? What if you can have arrays of redundant independent satellites? Your logic does not hold then, unless the space environment is somehow insurmountably extreme. (Apparently the Chinese are looking at COTS components for space. Radiation hardness is a problem, but not one that seems insurmountable for economies of scale.
What in particular about the space environment is *so* insurmountable that economies of scale can never apply to communications equipment? What in particular about the deep undersea environment makes cables inherently expensive? If your analogy really has merit, then the answer to these questions will be very interesting.
And note that I said "launch technologies" not "launch vehicles." We may be flying newer improved birds, but we are still doing things like we did in the 1970s. And as you point out we are not even doing the best we can at it. The record shows that doing it the way we are doing it now is not going to catalyze growth in space. I suspect that it has to be a new way, otherwise the price point will remain too high for things to get started.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone at NASA also worked out that you could build a tower 100km tall by using highly pressurized boron balloon tanks as columns. Put an electromagnetic accelerator on top of a series of these, and you have a working space elevator.
The post is related to the parent post's subject: "Actually..." But I decided to to an actual "actually" instead of a joke.
How about arrays of electromagnets arranged in the same pattern? We could use super-capacitors to store energy for short periods of time, and get the majority of power from overhead lines.
Basically, the Rotovator stores kinetic energy which is transferred to the cargo being lifted. The Rotovator can be gradually accelerated back to its former speed by very high efficiency engines, like ion engines. This is much more economical than chemical rockets because: 1) the very high exhaust velocities reduce the fuel required by a couple of order of magnitude and 2) you can refuel periodically using the Rotorvator itself.
In addition, power can be beamed to the Rotorvator from the earth using lasers or microwaves, which further reduces the weight of the entire system.
HASTOL stands for Hypersonic Airplane Space Tether Orbital Launch. This was studied by NASA. We currently have a hard time with a winged craft that can make it to orbit. Space elevators also require "Unobtanium" with unattainably high tensile strengths. But if we combine the two, we get something which is both technically feasible and capable of dirt-cheap earth to orbit. Basically, have an aircraft capable of very high altitude, and about half orbital velocity rendevous with a rotating tether (Rotovator) that can take a cargo the rest of the way to orbit.
PDF
View as HTML
More Cosmic Rope Tricks
Halbach Arrays would allow them to build a magnetically levitating train without active control of the magnets. The track would be nothing more than a series of aluminum or copper rings. The levitation doesn't work when the train is stationary, but secondary wheels only designed for low speed on a prepared surface could handle this. (Failure mode away from stations would be for the train to drag its belly. It could be designed to ear up the track, but ensure the passengers safety.) Electromagnetic drag also decreases as the speed of the train increases.
The resulting track and train would both cost a fraction of what they are currently spending. Both the levitation and guide magnets would be totally passive.
The living room is clearly the target of everyone going after the US market. No one has figured out how to make themselves more convenient than cable. Until you figure that out, it doesn't matter how badly cable sucks. Americans are all about the convenience.
With this, someone could be Daredevil in real life.
Here's a kid who does it without any technological aids!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/19/earlyshow/main1817689.shtml
Big and fluffy enough, it would enable you to dodge objects blindfolded. If it's big enough, you can stick monofilaments into it, so if you spun around, the filaments would whip around, allowing you to detect (and annoy) others around you. You'd be the whirling blind-sighted disco king!
http://www.afrosamurai.com/
The ultimate XBox strategy for Microsoft domination of the world (or at least the US) is for it to take over the living room. Start with Anime. Move on to sports. (Isn't the NFL trying to launch its own network?) Comedy Central? They could put a XBox branded YouTube on there. (Just re-skin the browser for YouTube pages.) Start small, even at a loss to Microsoft, but if they play it right, they can grow into a media empire. They could be the next cable, just with shows and series, but no time-slots. They would have targeted advertising, however.
Just reward the user with greater responsiveness if they don't follow-through when they are blocked. Cause the avatar to "pause" when the lightsaber is blocked, and make the pause more pronounced when the user really gets out of sync. Conversely, give them more responsiveness the more they "play nice" or follow what is happening on screen. You can also use this technique to enforce a "speed limit" on how fast the user can swing the Wiimote around, which makes playing safer, and might even improve gameplay. Fights will be more tactical and less twitch. Raising this "speed limit" would be one way of leveling the avatar up.
Building this into the training stages will be easy, and would even improve the narrative of lots of Star Wars and fantasy genre games.
Force feedback is not necessary if you simply reward the player for "following" the movements of the lightsaber and punishing them when they don't. (This includes coming to a stop when it hits something like another lightsaber.) The reward/punishment can take the form of greater responsiveness. For example, if the player doesn't stop their follow-through when they are blocked by another lightsaber, the game could have the avatar pause for a fraction of a second. (In some Star Wars content, Lightsabers are supposed to have some sort of "gyroscopic" effect, so there is some resistance to swinging them.) Part of a character's leveling up could be an increase in the speed the lightsaber is allowed to swing. Or, you could use this as another form of feedback for the player -- the better the player "follows" the lightsaber being blocked, the faster the avatar and lightsaber follows the user's movements.
The white-listing idea is just like Capabilities. That's the sort of security users really need. Security with Capabilities can be mathematically provable.
34 miles battery-only range, 444 miles with diesel generator. (Which is not even attached to the drivetrain.)
Plus, integrated Segway storage!
http://www.ohgizmo.com/2007/09/11/gm-opel-flextreme-concept-with-segway-storage/
One 90's electric car startup used a generator on a small trailer. This gave the same benefit as a plug-in hybrid, but without the weight penalty when not in use. If there is a standardized battery module, this might be able to accommodate a fuel tank and a generator with a somewhat smaller battery. I expect that such modules will be quite a bit larger than the average fuel tank, so this could be doable, especially with a gas turbine engine. An attachment on the tail of a car might be better as well.
On second thought, if any technology comes along that makes these things practical, then it would make the plug-in hybrid even more practical anyhow.
Electric cars with a practical range approaching 200 miles would suffice for most of the driving needs of most of the populace. If people could buy the cars, then subscribe to a battery service, this would enable fast battery module swaps. But most of the time, people would just charge overnight at home.
The other 20% would still need some form of internal combustion vehicle for dealing with heavier loads. But this would be much easier to provide with biodiesel than all of the vehicular needs of North America.
It's gotta be Legend of the Demon Womb. That's the one with the Nazi Death/Rape machine.
If the editors don't get corrected for their scientific illiteracy, the situation will never improve!
Do aerospace engineers get out much?
Who do I know who's an aerospace engineer? Hmmm. The keyboard player in my band. Does he get out much? He has a blonde hottie wife who has a bunch of hottie friends. And he's in high enough demand that he flies to gigs around the country.
How about thruster modules which can attach to satellites with a standardized mounting system? Then you could extend satellite life by having the old module detach itself and re-enter the atmosphere, letting the new module attach itself in its place. Alternatively, make the standardized mounting capable of supporting at least two modules, so that the old one can stay on and do station-keeping, while the new module docks. Perhaps a ring around the satellite's waist that the modules can clamp themselves to? The thruster modules would depend on the satellite for long term power. The same link that supplies power could also transmit data.
New technologies enable new ways of doing things. TSTO enables us to think of launch vehicles as *vehicles* and not munitions.
Also, I agree with you that we don't need new technologies. I have also seen proposals to simply use the current launch techniques, but with economies of scale and better management. Unfortunately, I don't think this gets us far enough. We also agree that the decrease in cost is currently not enough to spur anyone to pursue it. And again, we agree that the way we're doing things now is not working.
I thought you were saying that there isn't enough demand to get us out of the current situation. Which side are you arguing again?
So, if a service is being implemented as multiple redundant birds, why does *this* require ironclad reliability? Again, your logic is circular. If there are redundant multiple sats, then the loss of any one or two should *not* constitute a loss of service.
About 'hard' circuits and economies of scale - again your logic is circular. The demand is not high. But once you have the capability of launching multiple cheap sats, it will be.
(And you completely miss my point about Google. That was only an example to show that multiple commodity devices with low reliability can fill in for one expensive specialized machine with high reliability, not an analogy about the economic situation.)
Good, so you admit that there are no insurmountable physical constraints that could not be met by economies of scale. You only assert that economies of scale aren't there because demand isn't there. You have also agreed that these economies of scale aren't there because there's no demand. Again, we're back to our vicious cycle. This cycle could be broken by some R&D investment. In fact, I say that it will be. Only a matter of time.
"The problem isn't technology" only from the point of view of certain components we already have. However, a lot of engineering needs to be done to get entirely new types of launch up and running. We know that TSTO can work. Lots of engineering needs to be done to actually get it to work. Once we are there, people will become aware the economic rules for space launch they were playing by no longer apply.
You're right that technology is really not "the problem." Economics is. But until the technological tools that can change the rules are proven, people will keep playing by the old economic rules. This is where some up-front R&D investment will pay off. If things didn't progress this way, then we'd still be using vacuum tubes, only incrementally better and cheaper ones. The new, rules-changing technology of transistors required some up-front R&D investment.
Entirely new ways of launching (TSTO with "pop-up" launch profiles, for example) are very expensive to develop. So the large investment required is a particularly large barrier. But it is not insurmountably large. The price of it is falling as technology advances as well. It will fall sometime.
Uh, you're conflating two statements of mine. One was about 2 hour delivery around the world. If current delivery was proof of demand, then you have an analogous situation today. So by your own statement, there's proven demand there. My second statement was about the costs of the satellites. The reliability requirements are no longer ironclad. If you can have a cheap commodity backup already in place, then you do not need it! (Example: Google servers.)
For your example of undersea cables, you need to show analogous factors. Namely, has the technology for laying (launching) undersea cables advanced? Is there demand to drive the price of the better cable laying technology? Has the price of the better cable laying technology reached a threshold where cheap redundant cables can be in place? And finally, are there other technologies that make cables less valuable, which would confound your analogy?
Also, your logic is partly circular. Reliability requirements are ironclad, in part because those birds are expensive, and they are expensive in part because the reliability requirements are ironclad. What if reliability is not ironclad? What if you can have arrays of redundant independent satellites? Your logic does not hold then, unless the space environment is somehow insurmountably extreme. (Apparently the Chinese are looking at COTS components for space. Radiation hardness is a problem, but not one that seems insurmountable for economies of scale.
What in particular about the space environment is *so* insurmountable that economies of scale can never apply to communications equipment? What in particular about the deep undersea environment makes cables inherently expensive? If your analogy really has merit, then the answer to these questions will be very interesting.
And note that I said "launch technologies" not "launch vehicles." We may be flying newer improved birds, but we are still doing things like we did in the 1970s. And as you point out we are not even doing the best we can at it. The record shows that doing it the way we are doing it now is not going to catalyze growth in space. I suspect that it has to be a new way, otherwise the price point will remain too high for things to get started.