Riddle me this: Would it be feasible to launch a moon mission from the ISS?
You know the answer as well as I do: It's a waste of fuel. You might as well go directly to the moon. Which entirely defeats the purpose of using it as a staging point.
Your comment about it not being high enough to service satellites also makes no sense. ISS is higher than some satellites, lower than others, and many are in very different orbits (such as polar, or even molniya).
Most satellites lower than the ISS would not be worth servicing. (Would it even be feasible to catch a sat screaming by in a Molniya orbit?) Those sats that could use servicing are significantly above it or, as you stated, in a different orbit. Obviously, the ISS can't move, so you'd need a runabout craft to bring a sat to the station. You may recall that the Shuttle was originally going to pair up with a Space Tug to snag sats. (A concept which has been revived in previous years.) The complexity, size, and necessary fuel capacity of the tug all depend on the orbits it needs to move between.
Most of the sats worth doing maintenence on are comsats in Geosynchronous orbit, which places them over the equator. The "height" of the station was used to place it at a particularly pooor inclination to reach geosynchronous satellites. It would be far easier (and probably more cost effective) to launch the Shuttle on an orbital path with a closer inclination to the satellites than the ISS. The tug could then drag the sat back to the "closer" (in terms of orbit) Shuttle for service in its bay. Facilities in the Shuttle's bay can obviously be mission-specific, making it far more useful than the relatively fixed facilities of the ISS.
The Shuttle is actually a half-decent satellite-servicing platform. It's just too bad that no one actually wants their sats back.;)
Obviously, I was simplifying a bit by saying "high enough". We can get into further details if you'd like, but the point is that it's not a good location to reach satellites from.
ISS is a pretty good research platform (or at least will be once completed).
Can you do me a favor? PLEASE tell me, what facilties in specific will it have that are not better served by other vehicles? Because nothing I've seen suggests that it's great for anything beyond the simple zero-g experiments that NASA has been carrying out for decades now. Experiments that may derive minor benefit to science, but nothing to justify the massive costs of station supply and upkeep in comparison to using mission-specific platforms.
besides, shuttle is going away.
And the ISS depends on the Shuttle for construction and servicing. Which will leave it in a rather interesting postition when the shuttle is retired.:-/
- Weightless Treadmill - Spacewalks for Leak Checks - Studying fires in zero gravity - 4 year old polymers - Testing of Dust Detectors - Taking pretty pictures of the Earth - Play with their Magic Rocks kit
Yes, these are incredibly important experiments that we absolutely cannot do without the Space Station. (Can you hear the sound of my eyes rolling?)
There is practically nothing at those links that couldn't be done by the Space Shuttle with the SpaceLab attachment, or by dedicated satellites already in place. All these items are is justification for the station's existence. None of them make any serious advances in human knowledge, and many of them are retreads of experiments that have been done before. Even if we assume that some of these experiments are Very Important(TM), none of them are so important as to give the station priority over the CEV program. Anything the station is doing now could be done by an Ares V lifted station for a LOT LESS MONEY.
Instead of cutting the ISS's budget to pay for manned missions to the Moon and Mars, how about increasing NASA's budget so it can make the ISS successful and also go to the moon?
Successful at what? That's what no one can seem to tell us. John Glenn says that's there's "potential". You say that it can be a success. Neither one of you is telling what exactly the station is supposed to be useful for?
Anyone who looks carefully at the specs of the station realizes that it's not useful for anything. It can't act as a staging point )wrong orbit), it can't service satellites (not high enough), it doesn't offer any astronomical observation abilities over dedicated satellites like Hubble, its internal capacity is not that much greater than the Space Shuttle, and any ground observations are being done better by the Space Shuttle and dedicated sats. Basically, the ISS sits up there and shows the flag. (Or flags, as the case may be.)
If someone can give me even one good reason to keep the ISS, I'd run out there and help them rally for funding. Unfortuntely, no good reason exists. Just a lot of romanticism about manned space travel. Well, guess what people? Living in space is like living on the tall ships of yore. The ability to go new places had a lot of appeal, but the unhealthy conditions, uncomfortable quarters, stench of fellow humans, constant danger, and claustrophobic living space didn't make it worth the hassle unless that ship was doing something important. Tall ships weren't built by the governments of their time for pleasure cruises, and neither should Space Stations.
Let me preface this by saying that I have the highest respect for Former Senator and Colonel John Glenn. He was a pioneering figure in a world where manned space travel was only the stuff of dreams. That being said, Former Senator Glenn needs to STFU before he blows another huge hole in the space program.
The International Space Station was a bad idea from the get-go. It was placed in the wrong orbit, with the wrong components, and wrong plans for construction. It was a disaster from the moment it started, and was only conceived because Congress and NASA managed to twist a good plan for a moon-staging point into a useless abomination meant to symbolize international cooperation.
While I'm the first to admit that it's rather cool having a space station flying over our heads, I also know that it's a turkey. Skylab was far more useful than the ISS ever was, and that was launched in a single launch on the back of a Saturn V. In comparison, the ISS has required over a dozen Shuttle flights for construction, and it's still not done yet. Worse yet, the Space Shuttle is required by the plan for the regular reboosts of the station back into a stable orbit. It's just not a good design.
While I understand that Former Senator Glenn is upset that we're not seeing a return on the money we spent on the station, he needs to pay more attention to the economics of Sunk Costs. The money is already spent, and there is little to be gained from investing more money into the station. All that would happen is that NASA would waste further taxpayer funds that would show little to no return.
As a taxpayer myself, I would be extremely unhappy with NASA if they weren't diverting funds to the CEV program rather than the ISS. The development of the Ares V would provide NASA with far less expensive options for building and maintaining space stations. Options that would allow them to use such stations for useful ventures (like staging for moon missions) rather than mere symbolism.
Of course it does. The point is that using these technologies to improve movies is NOT borderline fraudulent. Which is the exact opposite of what this article is suggesting.
There's no difference between marketing print ads and movies. They're both fake, and as long as we know this there is no harm, or "fraud" as you put it.
His point is that using an air-brushed girl to advertise Avon skin care products is borderline fraudulent. No woman is ever going to look that good using those products. Heck, the woman in the magazine doesn't even look that good!
Using fake tears to make J-Lo (or whoever it was) cry is fine tuning a dramatic scene of a movie. The director isn't trying to get you to purchase any products with his changes. He's only attempting to bring the performances closer to his vision for the entertainment product. In many respects, it's like adding a coat of paint or polish before declaring the product ready for market.
I'm not forgetting. I'm being incredibly sarcastic. The world didn't end with the invention of the VCR, and the world won't end with users being able to record Youtube content.
You have to wonder what Viacom is thinking here. Is copyright protection such an issue that they would shun the market leaders?
Realisticly, it's an attempt by Viacom to place pressure on GooTube to do what they want. What they want is for Google to offer ultra-restrictive access to their... [my] precious... video content. Furthermore, they want Google to invent a foolproof copyright checker (as if such a thing is possible) to prevent average users from uploading Daily Show and Stephen Colbert clips. They're using the Joost deal as a bargaining chip to make Google do what they want.
In reality, this will end one of two ways:
1. Google will reply with a big, "So what?" and Viacom will only pay lip service to their Joost contract. A year down the road, Viacom will come back to YouTube with a cry of "me too!" when they notice how well the advertising is working for their competitors.
2. Google will appease Viacom with special features like: Prominent display of their content on the YouTube front page. Viacom will gruffly agree (when that's really one of the outcomes they were hoping for), but "only if you guys crack down harder on copyright violations!" Joost will get dropped like a rock.
Now if this was the Google of old, I'd say they will go with the first option. But given the slow progress of Google toward becoming Just Another Big Business(TM), I'd say it's just as likely that they'll take door #2.
Unless you happen to be Baen Books. They were the only ones who "got" the idea and provided books in a highly accessable format. Baen's ebooks have been a resounding success while all the Secure PDF and Microsoft eBook vendors scratch their heads at why they're doing so poorly.
At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such exploit for Joost is known to exist.
The lack of executive foresight never ceases to amaze me. Did they ever consider that no exploits exist for Joost because:
1. Joost isn't yet available to the public at large. (You need to sign up for a beta.)
2. No one cares about Joost?
If Viacom signs a contract with Joost, the "security" of their distribution method will change in a hurry.
The amazing part is that a simple trip down the hall to the IT department would have told these executives this. It's just too bad that execs never trust their own technology staff. As far as they're concerned, we're just a bunch of whiners and worry-warts.:-/
Besides, someone might save that 2 minute Craig Ferguson clip to their hard drive. OMG, OMG, OMG! The world will end! What will they do?!? (Shh! No one tell them about VCRs!)
That being said, I'm sure this move is actually more political than technical. Which only makes Viacoms position that much worse. Do they really want to cover over their political maneuvering by making themselves look uneducated?
From the Joost website:
Yesterday, we were The Venice Project(TM). Today, we're Joost(TM). Tomorrow, we're yours!
And that would make us, YourJoost(TM)! Which you can watch on a tube. Sort of like a... YourTube(TM). Or something.
As does clicking on a checkbox. Seriously, I don't need it to be any easier.
Unless the software you want isn't in the Synaptic repository. Then it's hell on earth for the average user. The only response they get from support and developers is, "Why would you want to use software that isn't in the repository?"
Actually, that's not true. There are plenty of other fun responses:
"You should compile it from source." "The vendor should spend his time getting his software added to our respository!" "Use RPMFind. I'm a developer and I've never had a problem installing binary packages on the distro I work on." (Conveniently ignoring that when something breaks, the "developer" fixes it himself.)
Not that there's much point in harping on this again. I'll just get the same, "U R STUPID", "You need to try distro XYZ", and "Everything is in my distro's repository!" answers I've gotten before.
We'll compensate the 16+ ms timer errors in the next frame
If you're getting 16+ ms timing errors in your game, you're doing something horrendously wrong. Not that I'm surprised. Timing in Java has been solved for years, yet every other day some moron posts his code with the most ridiculous attempt at code timing that I've ever seen.
Use the right tool for the right job. Which sometimes means replacing the tool behind the keyboard...
(Sorry if I seem cross. Your post just rubs me the wrong way.)
If by powerful you didn't mean technical power (Both the PS1, and PS2 had much more powerful consoles competing with them)
By "powerful" I mean "powerful enough to be useful for their time". Many of the early CD consoles were underpowered for the emerging 3D market. They simply couldn't keep up with even the simplest games. The 3DO wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly great either. The Playstation was less powerful than the N64, but it was also launched a full year earlier. (The console was actually older, but Sony was waiting for the right time to release it.)
Everything about the PS1 design screamed, "standard design". There wasn't anything particularly exceptional about it, but it was powerful enough to be the platform for a wide variety of games.:-)
Well, as a possible counter-argument, there was the MSX standard back in the 80s.
There was also the Commodore 64, the Atari 8-bits, Amigas, the Spectrums, and a whole bunch of other systems that were "Standard" or semi-standard across models. The key is that these were computers, not game consoles. The need to look at the minimum specs of a game made these more specialized platforms than those of the console market. A specialization that the PC platform fills today.
* The "Greenbook specification" aka "Philips CD-i" * 3DO * Apple Pippin
With successes like these, who could doubt the wisdom of a universal game platform?
[...]
(That was sarcasm for those who didn't catch it.)
The idea itself is sound, but it completely ignores the technological advancements that keep the industry afloat. Consoles don't just sit still with the same graphics designs, the same media, the same processors, and the same controllers. They branch out from each other, each trying out new concepts to bring fresh new possibilities to gaming. You cannot standardize a thing like this.
The closest thing the industry has ever had to a true standard was the PS1 and PS2. They provided a fairly generic but powerful platform upon which a variety of games could be developed. With the success of the PS2 as a DVD player, it almost became as standard in the home as DVD players themselves. But that may be over now. Technology is moving on again, with a new batch of multiprocessing, motion sensing, and graphically interesting game consoles. Leave the "standard" console concept in the grave where it belongs.
Silicon Valley has a lot of qualified computer scientists, software engineers, and programmers partly because of the inertia that it gained back in the 90's.
Don't you mean 1980's? The 90's tech bubble seemingly came out of Silicon Valley because it was already important to computer technology. Moreover, it had already been in the public eye for a very long period of time. If you don't believe me, go rewatch the pilot episode of Knight Rider: Knight of the Phoenix.
Slashdot Mirror
Riddle me this: Would it be feasible to launch a moon mission from the ISS?
You know the answer as well as I do: It's a waste of fuel. You might as well go directly to the moon. Which entirely defeats the purpose of using it as a staging point.
Most satellites lower than the ISS would not be worth servicing. (Would it even be feasible to catch a sat screaming by in a Molniya orbit?) Those sats that could use servicing are significantly above it or, as you stated, in a different orbit. Obviously, the ISS can't move, so you'd need a runabout craft to bring a sat to the station. You may recall that the Shuttle was originally going to pair up with a Space Tug to snag sats. (A concept which has been revived in previous years.) The complexity, size, and necessary fuel capacity of the tug all depend on the orbits it needs to move between.
Most of the sats worth doing maintenence on are comsats in Geosynchronous orbit, which places them over the equator. The "height" of the station was used to place it at a particularly pooor inclination to reach geosynchronous satellites. It would be far easier (and probably more cost effective) to launch the Shuttle on an orbital path with a closer inclination to the satellites than the ISS. The tug could then drag the sat back to the "closer" (in terms of orbit) Shuttle for service in its bay. Facilities in the Shuttle's bay can obviously be mission-specific, making it far more useful than the relatively fixed facilities of the ISS.
The Shuttle is actually a half-decent satellite-servicing platform. It's just too bad that no one actually wants their sats back.
Obviously, I was simplifying a bit by saying "high enough". We can get into further details if you'd like, but the point is that it's not a good location to reach satellites from.
Can you do me a favor? PLEASE tell me, what facilties in specific will it have that are not better served by other vehicles? Because nothing I've seen suggests that it's great for anything beyond the simple zero-g experiments that NASA has been carrying out for decades now. Experiments that may derive minor benefit to science, but nothing to justify the massive costs of station supply and upkeep in comparison to using mission-specific platforms.
And the ISS depends on the Shuttle for construction and servicing. Which will leave it in a rather interesting postition when the shuttle is retired.
Skylab fell to the ground because NASA let it, you moron. The same thing would happen to the ISS if NASA didn't regularly boost it.
This is a joke, right? Let's see here:
- Weightless Treadmill
- Spacewalks for Leak Checks
- Studying fires in zero gravity
- 4 year old polymers
- Testing of Dust Detectors
- Taking pretty pictures of the Earth
- Play with their Magic Rocks kit
Yes, these are incredibly important experiments that we absolutely cannot do without the Space Station. (Can you hear the sound of my eyes rolling?)
There is practically nothing at those links that couldn't be done by the Space Shuttle with the SpaceLab attachment, or by dedicated satellites already in place. All these items are is justification for the station's existence. None of them make any serious advances in human knowledge, and many of them are retreads of experiments that have been done before. Even if we assume that some of these experiments are Very Important(TM), none of them are so important as to give the station priority over the CEV program. Anything the station is doing now could be done by an Ares V lifted station for a LOT LESS MONEY.
Nice try, but no dice.
Successful at what? That's what no one can seem to tell us. John Glenn says that's there's "potential". You say that it can be a success. Neither one of you is telling what exactly the station is supposed to be useful for?
Anyone who looks carefully at the specs of the station realizes that it's not useful for anything. It can't act as a staging point )wrong orbit), it can't service satellites (not high enough), it doesn't offer any astronomical observation abilities over dedicated satellites like Hubble, its internal capacity is not that much greater than the Space Shuttle, and any ground observations are being done better by the Space Shuttle and dedicated sats. Basically, the ISS sits up there and shows the flag. (Or flags, as the case may be.)
If someone can give me even one good reason to keep the ISS, I'd run out there and help them rally for funding. Unfortuntely, no good reason exists. Just a lot of romanticism about manned space travel. Well, guess what people? Living in space is like living on the tall ships of yore. The ability to go new places had a lot of appeal, but the unhealthy conditions, uncomfortable quarters, stench of fellow humans, constant danger, and claustrophobic living space didn't make it worth the hassle unless that ship was doing something important. Tall ships weren't built by the governments of their time for pleasure cruises, and neither should Space Stations.
Let me preface this by saying that I have the highest respect for Former Senator and Colonel John Glenn. He was a pioneering figure in a world where manned space travel was only the stuff of dreams. That being said, Former Senator Glenn needs to STFU before he blows another huge hole in the space program.
The International Space Station was a bad idea from the get-go. It was placed in the wrong orbit, with the wrong components, and wrong plans for construction. It was a disaster from the moment it started, and was only conceived because Congress and NASA managed to twist a good plan for a moon-staging point into a useless abomination meant to symbolize international cooperation.
While I'm the first to admit that it's rather cool having a space station flying over our heads, I also know that it's a turkey. Skylab was far more useful than the ISS ever was, and that was launched in a single launch on the back of a Saturn V. In comparison, the ISS has required over a dozen Shuttle flights for construction, and it's still not done yet. Worse yet, the Space Shuttle is required by the plan for the regular reboosts of the station back into a stable orbit. It's just not a good design.
While I understand that Former Senator Glenn is upset that we're not seeing a return on the money we spent on the station, he needs to pay more attention to the economics of Sunk Costs. The money is already spent, and there is little to be gained from investing more money into the station. All that would happen is that NASA would waste further taxpayer funds that would show little to no return.
As a taxpayer myself, I would be extremely unhappy with NASA if they weren't diverting funds to the CEV program rather than the ISS. The development of the Ares V would provide NASA with far less expensive options for building and maintaining space stations. Options that would allow them to use such stations for useful ventures (like staging for moon missions) rather than mere symbolism.
Of course it does. The point is that using these technologies to improve movies is NOT borderline fraudulent. Which is the exact opposite of what this article is suggesting.
Your response confirms what I've suspected for a long while now: There's not much hope remaining for the human race. :-/
Great. Now I've got that song stuck in my head. Thanks a lump, buddy.
"Her emerald eyes, so cool and so inviting..."
(j/k!)
His point is that using an air-brushed girl to advertise Avon skin care products is borderline fraudulent. No woman is ever going to look that good using those products. Heck, the woman in the magazine doesn't even look that good!
Using fake tears to make J-Lo (or whoever it was) cry is fine tuning a dramatic scene of a movie. The director isn't trying to get you to purchase any products with his changes. He's only attempting to bring the performances closer to his vision for the entertainment product. In many respects, it's like adding a coat of paint or polish before declaring the product ready for market.
There is a difference.
That is exactly what I wanted to say, but you stated it far more eloquently than I ever could have.
I'm not forgetting. I'm being incredibly sarcastic. The world didn't end with the invention of the VCR, and the world won't end with users being able to record Youtube content.
:)
Thanks for trying to point that out, though.
Realisticly, it's an attempt by Viacom to place pressure on GooTube to do what they want. What they want is for Google to offer ultra-restrictive access to their... [my] precious... video content. Furthermore, they want Google to invent a foolproof copyright checker (as if such a thing is possible) to prevent average users from uploading Daily Show and Stephen Colbert clips. They're using the Joost deal as a bargaining chip to make Google do what they want.
In reality, this will end one of two ways:
1. Google will reply with a big, "So what?" and Viacom will only pay lip service to their Joost contract. A year down the road, Viacom will come back to YouTube with a cry of "me too!" when they notice how well the advertising is working for their competitors.
2. Google will appease Viacom with special features like: Prominent display of their content on the YouTube front page. Viacom will gruffly agree (when that's really one of the outcomes they were hoping for), but "only if you guys crack down harder on copyright violations!" Joost will get dropped like a rock.
Now if this was the Google of old, I'd say they will go with the first option. But given the slow progress of Google toward becoming Just Another Big Business(TM), I'd say it's just as likely that they'll take door #2.
Unless you happen to be Baen Books. They were the only ones who "got" the idea and provided books in a highly accessable format. Baen's ebooks have been a resounding success while all the Secure PDF and Microsoft eBook vendors scratch their heads at why they're doing so poorly.
The lack of executive foresight never ceases to amaze me. Did they ever consider that no exploits exist for Joost because:
1. Joost isn't yet available to the public at large. (You need to sign up for a beta.)
2. No one cares about Joost?
If Viacom signs a contract with Joost, the "security" of their distribution method will change in a hurry.
The amazing part is that a simple trip down the hall to the IT department would have told these executives this. It's just too bad that execs never trust their own technology staff. As far as they're concerned, we're just a bunch of whiners and worry-warts.
Besides, someone might save that 2 minute Craig Ferguson clip to their hard drive. OMG, OMG, OMG! The world will end! What will they do?!? (Shh! No one tell them about VCRs!)
That being said, I'm sure this move is actually more political than technical. Which only makes Viacoms position that much worse. Do they really want to cover over their political maneuvering by making themselves look uneducated?
From the Joost website:
And that would make us, YourJoost(TM)! Which you can watch on a tube. Sort of like a... YourTube(TM). Or something.
Who writes this stuff?
Where's the cold fusion? The article sounds more like Sonofusion. Which, I can assure you, is a long ways from "cold".
Unless the software you want isn't in the Synaptic repository. Then it's hell on earth for the average user. The only response they get from support and developers is, "Why would you want to use software that isn't in the repository?"
Actually, that's not true. There are plenty of other fun responses:
"You should compile it from source."
"The vendor should spend his time getting his software added to our respository!"
"Use RPMFind. I'm a developer and I've never had a problem installing binary packages on the distro I work on." (Conveniently ignoring that when something breaks, the "developer" fixes it himself.)
Not that there's much point in harping on this again. I'll just get the same, "U R STUPID", "You need to try distro XYZ", and "Everything is in my distro's repository!" answers I've gotten before.
Blinders on, and full speed ahead cap'n!
If you're getting 16+ ms timing errors in your game, you're doing something horrendously wrong. Not that I'm surprised. Timing in Java has been solved for years, yet every other day some moron posts his code with the most ridiculous attempt at code timing that I've ever seen.
Use the right tool for the right job. Which sometimes means replacing the tool behind the keyboard...
(Sorry if I seem cross. Your post just rubs me the wrong way.)
Pong didn't have a processor.
By "powerful" I mean "powerful enough to be useful for their time". Many of the early CD consoles were underpowered for the emerging 3D market. They simply couldn't keep up with even the simplest games. The 3DO wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly great either. The Playstation was less powerful than the N64, but it was also launched a full year earlier. (The console was actually older, but Sony was waiting for the right time to release it.)
Everything about the PS1 design screamed, "standard design". There wasn't anything particularly exceptional about it, but it was powerful enough to be the platform for a wide variety of games.
There was also the Commodore 64, the Atari 8-bits, Amigas, the Spectrums, and a whole bunch of other systems that were "Standard" or semi-standard across models. The key is that these were computers, not game consoles. The need to look at the minimum specs of a game made these more specialized platforms than those of the console market. A specialization that the PC platform fills today.
Indeed. That's what libraries like JOGL, JOAL, LWJGL, jME, Xith3D, etc., etc., etc. are for.
In other words, it fit the bill of a standardized platform perfectly.
* The "Greenbook specification" aka "Philips CD-i"
* 3DO
* Apple Pippin
With successes like these, who could doubt the wisdom of a universal game platform?
[...]
(That was sarcasm for those who didn't catch it.)
The idea itself is sound, but it completely ignores the technological advancements that keep the industry afloat. Consoles don't just sit still with the same graphics designs, the same media, the same processors, and the same controllers. They branch out from each other, each trying out new concepts to bring fresh new possibilities to gaming. You cannot standardize a thing like this.
The closest thing the industry has ever had to a true standard was the PS1 and PS2. They provided a fairly generic but powerful platform upon which a variety of games could be developed. With the success of the PS2 as a DVD player, it almost became as standard in the home as DVD players themselves. But that may be over now. Technology is moving on again, with a new batch of multiprocessing, motion sensing, and graphically interesting game consoles. Leave the "standard" console concept in the grave where it belongs.
Don't you mean 1980's? The 90's tech bubble seemingly came out of Silicon Valley because it was already important to computer technology. Moreover, it had already been in the public eye for a very long period of time. If you don't believe me, go rewatch the pilot episode of Knight Rider: Knight of the Phoenix.
"You want to be a Pharmer? Here, I give you a couple of achers!"
Ah, now if we could only invent a way of delivering a swift kick through the internet.