I was thinking the same thing. Use this as a media server. My only concern is that I have a Sony TV, and they only support HDCP through the DVI port, so I'd need to be able to get a component video signal out of this. ATI has supported this nicely in the past, just don't know if the 9200 supports this through a dongle.
I have to say, I do agree with you. It's the last five years I've spent trying to bring something... anything... to fruition that has jaded my outlook. Frankly, the current goal is to replace the human spaceflight capability with something less expenseive and safer. That is a step, but as you pointed out, only the first step. Part of the OSP program goal is to keep the path open for putting the OSP on a reusable vehicle once it comes online. The sad truth is that a reusable vehicle doesn't really have a chance to come online till 2020 or so.
The basic assumption that impedes the progress of a resuable vehicle is cost effectiveness. If someone could get by that, the technology is close. What it comes down to is the fundamental problem that plagues all transportation... the cost of infrastructure. All forms of transportation are subsidised by governments... whether the DOT and the roads, the FAA and the National Airspace, local governments and airports... Commercial development of transportation infrastructure is not a money making venture. The government has to suck op the infrastructure costs before any private company will have a reason to want to provide transportation.
*sigh* I'm in the wrong business to spark my emotions about space travel... and that business is the space travel business...
That's exactly what NASA has decided to finally do. They're putting a reusable launch vehicle on hold, because there's no reason to build one, unless you can use it at least 50 times a year. Probably more times are required to really make it cost effective.
I disagree with the "shuttle replacement" needing to have all the capabilities of Shuttle. The shuttle was a noble undertaking, and a great feat of engineering. However it was conceived in a time where the government needed to keep thousands of Apollo program engineers employed. There are three key objectives that shuttle addresses. With ISS in orbit, we've negated the science aspect of the shuttle. We no longer need to launch a laboratory with the scientists. The second use of the shuttle is to deliver large payloads... specifically those that need "human activation". Well the military has gone away from human activation of complex payloads. NASA is well served moving away from that as well to decrease the risk loss of crew. The final use for the shuttle? Transport of humans to and from low earth orbit. The overhead in cost and risk paid by carrying two capabilities that are not necessary is what is driving use away from a shuttle type system.
The Orbital Space Plane was conceived to meet the key need: human transportation.
I am not making a stand on the need for human vs. non-human exploration. What I am saying that if we require human transportation, we need a system dedicated to that purpose, without weighing it down with costly and risky options that are no longer necessary.
I am certainly biased in my view towards and Orbital Space Plane replacement for shuttle. I have been working on the OSP for 5 years, since it was (re) conceived in 1997. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
It's not actually the impact to movie ticket sales and video rentals that's at stake. It's the copyright issues. If Lucas does not attempt to defend his copyright, he looses it. He has to hire lawyers to register complaints etc, otherwise he will loose the rights to the movie.
This is the same reason that Star Trek sites were shut down...
Just to clarify... X34 is not over budget. It's a firm fixed price contract, so NASA can't spend more than it allocated on it. Any cost over run would be sucked up by the prime contractor.
The reason that private SSTO won't happen, is that SSTO won't happen. The technolgy sipmly does not exist at this time to create a feasable SSTO vehicle. More likely, a TSTO (Two Stage to Orbit) reusable vehicle will emerge first. Kistler started down this track, but is having major financial problems. They recently magaged to get Northrup Grumman to bail them out about $30mil worth, but at a time when NGC has decided that it wants out of the space busniess (new business strategy for them apparently) Don't see how this can help them out. Also, there are several technical problems with Kistler's design that they haven't addressed yet (no need to go into them here). Finally, Roton, which started out as a design whacky enough that it just might have worked, has abandoned all of it's technical inovation and settled on a design thats basically DC-X all over again with rotor blades attached. DC-X was a good design, but never meant to go to orbit... my 2cents (more like $2...)
Re:Has anyone else been watching the X33?
on
NASA's X-37
·
· Score: 1
I don't believe X33 will ever fly... they're having major problems with the O2 tanks and aerospike engine. The X34 holds much more promise for developing and testing new technology... of course I'm biased:)
Re:The path to commercial space travel
on
NASA's X-37
·
· Score: 1
If the common man flies in space in my lifetime, I can bet that it wont be because of NASA. NASA was once the cream of the crop for aerospace engineers. However, these days very few NASA centers are capable of producing good, cheap hardware. The shift has moved into the commercial sector. Until a business man comes up with a profitable venture for putting the common man in space, it will remain a dream. There are several companies and people who are trying to make a case, but most come up short. Roton, which has gotten a lot of press lately just scrapped the one good piece of technology they were developing for a derivative of a NASA developed engine that won't get them to where they want to go (IMHO).
I have to say, even coming from MIT, that unless you were a CS major, Linux wasn't that prevalent. However, after reading the article in Tech Review, I think I'm going to set up an inexpensive laptop running Linux just to play around with. I certainly learned more about Linux from that article, than I did in 4 year at MIT. I'm keeping that issue! (Plus my wedding picture is in it too:)
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I love slashdot... who'd have thought I'd learn this today!
I was thinking the same thing. Use this as a media server. My only concern is that I have a Sony TV, and they only support HDCP through the DVI port, so I'd need to be able to get a component video signal out of this. ATI has supported this nicely in the past, just don't know if the 9200 supports this through a dongle.
I have to say, I do agree with you. It's the last five years I've spent trying to bring something... anything... to fruition that has jaded my outlook. Frankly, the current goal is to replace the human spaceflight capability with something less expenseive and safer. That is a step, but as you pointed out, only the first step. Part of the OSP program goal is to keep the path open for putting the OSP on a reusable vehicle once it comes online. The sad truth is that a reusable vehicle doesn't really have a chance to come online till 2020 or so.
The basic assumption that impedes the progress of a resuable vehicle is cost effectiveness. If someone could get by that, the technology is close. What it comes down to is the fundamental problem that plagues all transportation... the cost of infrastructure. All forms of transportation are subsidised by governments... whether the DOT and the roads, the FAA and the National Airspace, local governments and airports... Commercial development of transportation infrastructure is not a money making venture. The government has to suck op the infrastructure costs before any private company will have a reason to want to provide transportation.
*sigh* I'm in the wrong business to spark my emotions about space travel... and that business is the space travel business...
luhar
That's exactly what NASA has decided to finally do. They're putting a reusable launch vehicle on hold, because there's no reason to build one, unless you can use it at least 50 times a year. Probably more times are required to really make it cost effective.
I disagree with the "shuttle replacement" needing to have all the capabilities of Shuttle. The shuttle was a noble undertaking, and a great feat of engineering. However it was conceived in a time where the government needed to keep thousands of Apollo program engineers employed. There are three key objectives that shuttle addresses. With ISS in orbit, we've negated the science aspect of the shuttle. We no longer need to launch a laboratory with the scientists. The second use of the shuttle is to deliver large payloads... specifically those that need "human activation". Well the military has gone away from human activation of complex payloads. NASA is well served moving away from that as well to decrease the risk loss of crew. The final use for the shuttle? Transport of humans to and from low earth orbit. The overhead in cost and risk paid by carrying two capabilities that are not necessary is what is driving use away from a shuttle type system.
The Orbital Space Plane was conceived to meet the key need: human transportation.
I am not making a stand on the need for human vs. non-human exploration. What I am saying that if we require human transportation, we need a system dedicated to that purpose, without weighing it down with costly and risky options that are no longer necessary.
I am certainly biased in my view towards and Orbital Space Plane replacement for shuttle. I have been working on the OSP for 5 years, since it was (re) conceived in 1997. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
It's not actually the impact to movie ticket sales and video rentals that's at stake. It's the copyright issues. If Lucas does not attempt to defend his copyright, he looses it. He has to hire lawyers to register complaints etc, otherwise he will loose the rights to the movie.
This is the same reason that Star Trek sites were shut down...
Luhar
Just to clarify... X34 is not over budget. It's a firm fixed price contract, so NASA can't spend more than it allocated on it. Any cost over run would be sucked up by the prime contractor.
The reason that private SSTO won't happen, is that SSTO won't happen. The technolgy sipmly does not exist at this time to create a feasable SSTO vehicle. More likely, a TSTO (Two Stage to Orbit) reusable vehicle will emerge first. Kistler started down this track, but is having major financial problems. They recently magaged to get Northrup Grumman to bail them out about $30mil worth, but at a time when NGC has decided that it wants out of the space busniess (new business strategy for them apparently) Don't see how this can help them out. Also, there are several technical problems with Kistler's design that they haven't addressed yet (no need to go into them here). Finally, Roton, which started out as a design whacky enough that it just might have worked, has abandoned all of it's technical inovation and settled on a design thats basically DC-X all over again with rotor blades attached. DC-X was a good design, but never meant to go to orbit... my 2cents (more like $2...)
I don't believe X33 will ever fly... they're having major problems with the O2 tanks and aerospike engine. The X34 holds much more promise for developing and testing new technology... of course I'm biased :)
If the common man flies in space in my lifetime, I can bet that it wont be because of NASA. NASA was once the cream of the crop for aerospace engineers. However, these days very few NASA centers are capable of producing good, cheap hardware. The shift has moved into the commercial sector. Until a business man comes up with a profitable venture for putting the common man in space, it will remain a dream. There are several companies and people who are trying to make a case, but most come up short. Roton, which has gotten a lot of press lately just scrapped the one good piece of technology they were developing for a derivative of a NASA developed engine that won't get them to where they want to go (IMHO).
I have to say, even coming from MIT, that unless you were a CS major, Linux wasn't that prevalent. However, after reading the article in Tech Review, I think I'm going to set up an inexpensive laptop running Linux just to play around with. I certainly learned more about Linux from that article, than I did in 4 year at MIT. I'm keeping that issue! (Plus my wedding picture is in it too :)