Corny as this may sound, bleak outlooks on the future, however "justified," tend to produce bleak futures. The inverse is also true.
As I've said in more than a few other space related threads, I became an engineer because of Apollo. Despite my mild depression, the space program has instilled in me a sense of optimism and purpose I just can't shake. As long as there are bright people with big dreams, we're in for greater days, I promise.
On a more personal note, if you're young, remember that your life is just beginning and, given enough hard work, courage, and luck, you might just help bring about the next golden age.
If you're older, and forgive me because I can't help but be rude here, please don't infect our youth with that nonsense. They need all the hope they can get.
Not really. From a pure cost perspective, it's pretty expensive and, quite honestly, it doesn't have much of a taste. On the other hand, some restaurants serve hot sake with a dried fugu tail in it, and that's both inexpensive and tasty.
Heh... with a large enough dob (and 18" is large enough!), you can make an off-axis mask with a greater unobstructed apeture than any refractor mere mortals could afford. Contrast is amazing, and there's no false color. Absolutely gorgeous.
Check out the Foothill College Observatory on Friday nights. If they're not doing it already, I'm sure they'll be observing Saturn as the opposition approaches. It's always fun, and always informative.
I had a chance to check out Saturn recently. This opposition will be quite good, indeed!
I'm glad to see that Nozomi will be useful, albeit not in the capacity for which it was originally designed. I've no doubt the data returned from its solar activity monitoring missions will prove very valuable. Aptly named craft, indeed.
I don't think fires or security will be a major concern. According to the article:
The technology uses water produced by the fuel cell to dilute the methanol to the 3-6 per cent concentration required for the electricity generating reaction. The upshot: the methanol can be stored at a much higher concentration, requiring a much smaller (ten per cent) fuel tank.
The wording is a bit confusing, so I'm not sure if the fuel tanks are 10% smaller, or that the concentration of methanol in the fuel tanks is 10%.
Either way, it's pretty clear that the fuel cell reaction only takes place with very low concentrations of methanol, and my guess is the fuel is going to be a comparitvely dilute mixture of methanol and water.
The bottom line is, yes, you can learn things from documentation, but it takes a lot longer than it would if you had an experienced person "show you the ropes."
The point I was trying to make with that analogy is that the insights and subtleties inherent in any design are never fully captured in documentation alone, no matter how complete the documentation might be. Much of that knowledge will have to be relearned by the team that designs the next generation of launch vehicles.
I never intended to equate the two standards of documentation, and I think you realize that.
Well, for one thing, the only launch vehicle you mentioned was the Space Shuttle, and that was designed by the same old guard that brought you the Saturn V. The rest of your list was payload.
Second, just because a project is documented doesn't mean it's easily reproduced. How many times have you read a Linux doc and wondered what the author was thinking? Now imagine the vast assembly of (no doubt incomplete) documentation necessary to build a launch vehicle.
The bottom line is, yes, you can learn things from documentation, but it takes a lot longer than it would if you had an experienced person "show you the ropes." I'm not saying a moon landing would be impossible to reproduce, just don't expect us back there anytime soon, even if the funding was adequate.
We absolutely could not return to the moon in less than five years, even if NASA had a surplus of cash. Nothing remotely close to a Saturn V class launch vehicle has been built in the last 30 years. We would have to start, quite literally, from the ground up because the expertise needed to construct such a vehicle simply isn't there.
von Braun and his crew had been with NASA since the Redstone days. Until fairly recently, there was no such thing as a "commodity" launch vehicle. Each rocket was, essentially, a custom job. Admittedly, NASA is facing a budget crisis, but a far greater concern is the loss of momentum and knowledge transfer.
This, along with justifying a defense budget, is the very reason we (Americans) develop a new combat aircraft every five years or so. Not so much to replace aging designs (the F-16 is still a top-notch fighter) but to train the next generation of aerospace engineers.
I acknowledge as fact that the moon landings occurred, but I'm not at all surprised that some people don't. After all, what have we done since then? Apollo, while inspiring, exemplified "pyramid building" in its most extreme form.
We spent billions of dollars pursuing this grand enterprise and for what? To NEVER return? Where are the research stations? The power plants? The mines? Where's the grand plan for the future?
The saddest thing of all is that if NASA had the money and motivation to return to the moon, I doubt we'd be able to do it before 2015, since most of the engineers that worked on the Apollo missions have long since retired or died. I'm pretty young myself (24), and I don't mind saying that without the requisite experience base, all the technology we throw at the problem is utterly USELESS.
Sorry for the rant, guys and gals. I went to school, studied, and became an engineer because of Apollo. The fact that NASA's become little more than a budget problem is about the saddest thing I've ever heard.
LCDs are hideous. Even the ultra high-end ones suffer from the same problems: poor viewing angles, inconsistent color rendition w.r.t. viewing angle, high pixel response times, and poor dynamic range. Nothing I've seen can, as yet, touch a well-built CRT.
With that said, can I expect OLED displays to address these issues, or will I be lugging around my CRT well into the mid 2030s?
Disclaimer: I just read the article, so this is pure conjecture.
Since they're burning plants, the process is close to CO2-neutral. The plants take in CO2 as they grow which is re-emitted when they burn. When burned in a (presumably) oxygen-rich mining furnace, CO and NOx emissions are probably fairly low.
The entire point of the process is to recover ash and other particulates, so one would expect fairly tight control of those, too.
How is this Microsoft's job, anyway? Why does Microsoft have the authority to do this? Who gave them that authority?
What does Microsoft gain from having this authority? Is the FTC paying attention?
First thing that came to mind was a prototype chavline, a la The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson. Granted, the chevaline had four legs and no enclosed cockpit, as I recall. Still, that's the first thing that sprang to my mind.
Wow. I want.
You saved me the trouble of typing this myself. The ISS, our shutle fleet, hell, the ENTIRE MANNED SPACE PROGRAM is a huge white elephant. If science is really NASA's goal:
1) Give the manned program a rest until we have heavy lift capability or reusable vehicles with maintenance schedules similar to those of military aircraft.
2) Build more Galileo-class probes. The faster-better-cheaper nonsense has been exposed for what it is. Doing anything right is neither fast, nor cheap. Focus on the "better" part and save money in the long term.
3) Don't succumb to the urge to "build pyramids." Apollo, was a classic example of what we DON'T want to see happen: an awesome technical achievement left to decay when priorities shifted. When we go to Mars, I hope we'll have a CONCRETE exploration / colonization plan that extends DECADES into the future, not just a series of flag-plantings.
No email addy, so I can't take this off list. Sorry for going OT.
Check out the place in the strip mall on the corner of Tasman and North First, along the San Jose/Santa Clara border. It's called "Greek Castle" or something to that effect. Decent food.
Slashdot Mirror
Corny as this may sound, bleak outlooks on the future, however "justified," tend to produce bleak futures. The inverse is also true.
As I've said in more than a few other space related threads, I became an engineer because of Apollo. Despite my mild depression, the space program has instilled in me a sense of optimism and purpose I just can't shake. As long as there are bright people with big dreams, we're in for greater days, I promise.
On a more personal note, if you're young, remember that your life is just beginning and, given enough hard work, courage, and luck, you might just help bring about the next golden age.
If you're older, and forgive me because I can't help but be rude here, please don't infect our youth with that nonsense. They need all the hope they can get.
Not really. From a pure cost perspective, it's pretty expensive and, quite honestly, it doesn't have much of a taste. On the other hand, some restaurants serve hot sake with a dried fugu tail in it, and that's both inexpensive and tasty.
-boredman
Really? Interesting... Please post if you find any info about them!
They're called bower birds, and they live in Australia.
Heh... with a large enough dob (and 18" is large enough!), you can make an off-axis mask with a greater unobstructed apeture than any refractor mere mortals could afford. Contrast is amazing, and there's no false color. Absolutely gorgeous.
I thought Chaucer wrote this. Who's this Chauncer guy?
Check out the Foothill College Observatory on Friday nights. If they're not doing it already, I'm sure they'll be observing Saturn as the opposition approaches. It's always fun, and always informative.
I had a chance to check out Saturn recently. This opposition will be quite good, indeed!
I'm glad to see that Nozomi will be useful, albeit not in the capacity for which it was originally designed. I've no doubt the data returned from its solar activity monitoring missions will prove very valuable. Aptly named craft, indeed.
It's true. I'm an amateur astronomer, and I can tell you that Saturn is always a better show than Mars, as is Jupiter.
Nothing special about the geometries of the next opposition of Saturn, it's just a *much* prettier planet, IMHO.
-boredman
Could this technology also be used to shield RF-sensitive circuits, or perhaps EMP-harden ICs?
-boredman
I don't think fires or security will be a major concern. According to the article:
The technology uses water produced by the fuel cell to dilute the methanol to the 3-6 per cent concentration required for the electricity generating reaction. The upshot: the methanol can be stored at a much higher concentration, requiring a much smaller (ten per cent) fuel tank.
The wording is a bit confusing, so I'm not sure if the fuel tanks are 10% smaller, or that the concentration of methanol in the fuel tanks is 10%.
Either way, it's pretty clear that the fuel cell reaction only takes place with very low concentrations of methanol, and my guess is the fuel is going to be a comparitvely dilute mixture of methanol and water.
My girlfriend and I watched the 2001 show from the waterfront in Vancouver. Haze and city glare notwithstanding, it was an incredible show!
I might be wrong, but it's definitely worth a look outside around 2-2:30.
-boredman
I reiterate:
The bottom line is, yes, you can learn things from documentation, but it takes a lot longer than it would if you had an experienced person "show you the ropes."
The point I was trying to make with that analogy is that the insights and subtleties inherent in any design are never fully captured in documentation alone, no matter how complete the documentation might be. Much of that knowledge will have to be relearned by the team that designs the next generation of launch vehicles.
I never intended to equate the two standards of documentation, and I think you realize that.
-boredman
Well, for one thing, the only launch vehicle you mentioned was the Space Shuttle, and that was designed by the same old guard that brought you the Saturn V. The rest of your list was payload.
Second, just because a project is documented doesn't mean it's easily reproduced. How many times have you read a Linux doc and wondered what the author was thinking? Now imagine the vast assembly of (no doubt incomplete) documentation necessary to build a launch vehicle.
The bottom line is, yes, you can learn things from documentation, but it takes a lot longer than it would if you had an experienced person "show you the ropes." I'm not saying a moon landing would be impossible to reproduce, just don't expect us back there anytime soon, even if the funding was adequate.
-boredman
We absolutely could not return to the moon in less than five years, even if NASA had a surplus of cash. Nothing remotely close to a Saturn V class launch vehicle has been built in the last 30 years. We would have to start, quite literally, from the ground up because the expertise needed to construct such a vehicle simply isn't there.
von Braun and his crew had been with NASA since the Redstone days. Until fairly recently, there was no such thing as a "commodity" launch vehicle. Each rocket was, essentially, a custom job. Admittedly, NASA is facing a budget crisis, but a far greater concern is the loss of momentum and knowledge transfer.
This, along with justifying a defense budget, is the very reason we (Americans) develop a new combat aircraft every five years or so. Not so much to replace aging designs (the F-16 is still a top-notch fighter) but to train the next generation of aerospace engineers.
-boredman
I acknowledge as fact that the moon landings occurred, but I'm not at all surprised that some people don't. After all, what have we done since then? Apollo, while inspiring, exemplified "pyramid building" in its most extreme form.
We spent billions of dollars pursuing this grand enterprise and for what? To NEVER return? Where are the research stations? The power plants? The mines? Where's the grand plan for the future?
The saddest thing of all is that if NASA had the money and motivation to return to the moon, I doubt we'd be able to do it before 2015, since most of the engineers that worked on the Apollo missions have long since retired or died. I'm pretty young myself (24), and I don't mind saying that without the requisite experience base, all the technology we throw at the problem is utterly USELESS.
Sorry for the rant, guys and gals. I went to school, studied, and became an engineer because of Apollo. The fact that NASA's become little more than a budget problem is about the saddest thing I've ever heard.
-boredman
LCDs are hideous. Even the ultra high-end ones suffer from the same problems: poor viewing angles, inconsistent color rendition w.r.t. viewing angle, high pixel response times, and poor dynamic range. Nothing I've seen can, as yet, touch a well-built CRT.
With that said, can I expect OLED displays to address these issues, or will I be lugging around my CRT well into the mid 2030s?
-boredman
Disclaimer: I just read the article, so this is pure conjecture.
Since they're burning plants, the process is close to CO2-neutral. The plants take in CO2 as they grow which is re-emitted when they burn. When burned in a (presumably) oxygen-rich mining furnace, CO and NOx emissions are probably fairly low.
The entire point of the process is to recover ash and other particulates, so one would expect fairly tight control of those, too.
-boredman
How is this Microsoft's job, anyway? Why does Microsoft have the authority to do this? Who gave them that authority? What does Microsoft gain from having this authority? Is the FTC paying attention?
First thing that came to mind was a prototype chavline, a la The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson. Granted, the chevaline had four legs and no enclosed cockpit, as I recall. Still, that's the first thing that sprang to my mind. Wow. I want.
Good call. The great observatories have been enormously valuable.
You saved me the trouble of typing this myself. The ISS, our shutle fleet, hell, the ENTIRE MANNED SPACE PROGRAM is a huge white elephant. If science is really NASA's goal:
1) Give the manned program a rest until we have heavy lift capability or reusable vehicles with maintenance schedules similar to those of military aircraft.
2) Build more Galileo-class probes. The faster-better-cheaper nonsense has been exposed for what it is. Doing anything right is neither fast, nor cheap. Focus on the "better" part and save money in the long term.
3) Don't succumb to the urge to "build pyramids." Apollo, was a classic example of what we DON'T want to see happen: an awesome technical achievement left to decay when priorities shifted. When we go to Mars, I hope we'll have a CONCRETE exploration / colonization plan that extends DECADES into the future, not just a series of flag-plantings.
No email addy, so I can't take this off list. Sorry for going OT. Check out the place in the strip mall on the corner of Tasman and North First, along the San Jose/Santa Clara border. It's called "Greek Castle" or something to that effect. Decent food.
"C: All the power of assembly with the convenience of assembly."
I seem to recall us dropping a probe into the atmosphere at some point. Either Gallileo or Magaellan. Don't remember which.