Re:Why isn't this already out?
on
Next Generation X11
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
MODS: Will you please give this guy back a point of Karma or two? Just because he's got fruitcake ideas doesn't mean that he deserves to be silenced.
Parent Poster: You're way off base on the "problems" with X, but it does strike me that you're grasping for what the core issue is. The remaining issue with X.org/XFree86 is not with the controls, but rather with the monolithic architecture. X11 demands the full attention of the video card plus all other hardware it controls, and does not like to give up that control. The result is that X11 tends to be inflexible for work outside of "normal" desktop usage.
What X.org/XFree86 really need to do is separate the graphical and interface device layers from the desktop interface layer. i.e. It should be possible for any system program to be able to ask for exclusive video card access, even when the Desktop is not running. Currently, you have to chose between running X11 or using the external SuperVGA library.
You'll note that this is how the X server functions on systems like Sun Sparcs. On my UltraSparc, the system is ALWAYS in graphics mode. Running X just makes the X-Server take over the graphical screen. Very modular, very flexible. Not to mention that it places the graphics card support back in the OS drivers where it belongs, and not in a server with a focused purpose. Remember, the Unix philosophy is to keep everything in simple, bite sized chunks. The X.org/XFree86 implementation is the anti-thesis of that (although they are attempting to compensate with their portable driver loader design).
Just a friendly suggestion, but you might be able to keep people off your back if you occasionally add a news item. It doesn't have to be any big news (like a release), just something to let everyone know "Hey, we're still here! Don't bug us about it!" It can be as simple as a status report or "I had this cool idea and I'm working on coding it." It could even be the line, "Yes, we're still here." (Although that won't keep anyone's interest for very long.;-))
Perhaps the reason the effects have gone unused on other platforms is because they weren't part of the platform.
Nonsense. The Mac has its Genie effect, both Windows and Mac can do window transparencies, and both systems have odd-shaped window support. None of these effects have gone to much use, because they are little more than eye candy. Which is primarily what I'm seeing in these videos. The Enlightenment interface doesn't even add the cool "Dock" animation abilities into it's interface. Instead it requires the user to manually resize icons until they're happy with the results. The only problem is, I have no idea how anyone would find this useful.
Compare that to the following concepts:
1. The icon you're hovering over expands to help you see what you're clicking on and hit the target correctly. (Mac OS X Dock.)
2. Windows can be flipped over so that notes can be placed for later reference. (Sun Looking Glass)
3. Objects on a table-screen can be moved by dragging your finger, rotated by moving a second finger outside of the object being dragged, and copied by dragging two fingers around the object(s) to highlight an area. (See here)
See how much more useful those concepts are than "floppy windows"? That's not to say that the base technology isn't useful. It's damned useful, and will be the basis for future desktops. But I see no actual UI research, and the tech has been available on X11 for several years now.
Re:Why isn't this already out?
on
Next Generation X11
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Yeah wasn't there a Y windows in the works at one point.
You mean this? Fresco was the other big contender.
The Linux Kernel is so flexable in how you can customize it for the hardware situation, its a shame you can't do the same thing for X.
Modern X actually does let you plug-in, plug-out all kinds of useless^H useful crap. It has actually matured into a fairly decent system, network transparency or no.
Where this article falls flat is on trying to make us believe that any of what we're seeing is "new". We've seen it all before, just with fewer cheap effects (e.g. the "wobbly windows").
Why isn't this already out?
on
Next Generation X11
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
1995: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo! 1998: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo! 2000: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo! 2005: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo!
Nope, never heard these promises before...
Joking aside, I didn't see anything in the photos or videos that's revolutionary. Enlightenment looks like its usual "prrreeeeetttyyy" self, and X11 is shown with various transparency and warping effects that have been available on other platforms but have been largely unused.
The question of "Why have they gone unused?" seems to be pretty well answered by some of these videos. i.e. None of the applications seem to do much of anything different than current applications do. The only difference is that they have a "cool" interface. All I can say to that is, Kai's Power Tools had a "cool" interface as well. Didn't get them (or hundreds of other "me too!" programs) very far.
The truely interesting projects I've seen lately are:
1. Sun's Looking Glass Project. While it's not revolutionary in of itself, it is an excellent evolutionary step in user interface improvements. Sun really took the right path by keeping with existing Desktop designs, but improving on existing concepts like sticky notes and window shading (the ability to "fold up" a window). They've also left the door wide open for developers to leverage the new desktop for new UI concepts that fully utilize the 3D abilities of the system.
2. There was an "Ask Slashdot" a few days ago with a guy who was working on the mother of all touchpads. It was literally more of an interactive tactical plot that could have amazing uses in collaberative work.
First they don't want us to buy/sell EQ merch over ebay. Now they want the exclusive contract. TOTAL CARP.
I can sell you our special TOTAL brand of CARP for a mere $32.59. Buy now, and I'll even throw in these TOTAL GUPPIES, guaranteed to make a tasty snack for your virtual player!
Warning: Failure to cook product may result in the virtual death of your virtual player. All sales are final. TOTAL is a virtual brand of the virtual company TOTAL CORP. No affiliation to Total Cereals. Free Guppy offer is valid while supplies last. Must be a US resident of age 15 or older, and have an IQ lower than 70.
Sorry, maybe I was not specific enough. One can cram the equivalent of a one year course on WII at a University in a week of off-hand research. That's not quite the same thing as performing in-depth research for a book or research project. I'm not in any way suggesting that the Internet can replace that sort of data gathering. However, it can help facilitate bringing you in contact with the various people who have the experiences and information you need.:-)
I'd be glad if they found such evidence. It would provide the best possible excuse for a manned mission.
Not if anyone stopped to think for a moment. Back in the early 90's, before the big announcement about the meteor from Mars with bacteria on it, a well known Christian scientist (Hugh Ross, I think) was asked if he thought we'd find life on Mars. His response was that he had little doubt that we'd find microbial life on Mars. When asked to elaborate, he explained that some of the ejecta from meteor strikes on Earth has most likely washed back through the Solar System, and that various forms of microbes are likely to have been spread that way.
So really it's hard to blame Berman or any of the successors to Roddenberry for the past 2 series completely, because as we should know, no matter how good of a story you write, it can only go as far as the limitations given to you by Big-Wig Hollywood.
So the Indian planet/Weseley Traveller idea was all the network's fault? Or the rip-off-B5-but-without-a-plot-and-a-really-bad-rel igion concept was all the network's idea? Or how about the casting of Mr. "Gay" Chakotay? (The actor stated that his character was intended to be gay, but the producers ended up backing off the idea.) What about such memorable lines as "I can remember being born!"? Or the concept for a series where the technology is almost as good as that of two centuries later? Or idiotic "firsts" like a transporter malfunction? "Ooooo, ahhhh, stuuuuuupiiiid."
I will agree that the studio did some dumb things (like changing the ending to the Enterprise episode about the two races evolving on the same planet), but the studio's decisions were far eclipsed by the stupidity of the producers. I mean, these are the same people who do a prequel while being PROUD of the fact that they've never seen the original series! WTF?
Oh, and did I ever mention how much I HATE the buzzword "species"? And if I hear the terms "EPS Conduit" or "Deflector Dish" one more time, I swear I'm going to hurl.
What does surprise me is that Paramount has refused to accept the demand from the fans, including 3.1 MILLION dollars raised to fund it. It makes you wonder what they are up to, and why they are allowed to monopolize the Star Trek world in such a way.
It seems pretty obvious to me. Paramount leadership has woken up to the fact that Berman has been destroying the series for over a decade. Prior to now, such destruction was at least profitable. Now that margins are thin, Paramount intends to give Trek a rest.
Why the "rest", you ask? Simple. The problem with just kicking the producer off the show is that the machinery alredy in place continues to produce the same old crap. To actually *change* things, you need to either hire someone who's willing to duke it out with the staff (difficult and doesn't always work), or you can wait until they are fully disbanded and then start over from scratch. Paramount has wisely chosen the later.
Makes you wonder what Roddenberry would say at this point.
He doesn't have to say much. The ISS is currently being powered by the spin imparted on his ashes.
Pulse jets are completely different from Nuclear Pulse drives. I suggest you look them up on Wikipedia for more info.
FWIW, all the information I have says that the Aurora either never existed or doesn't exist anymore. If I were you, I wouldn't get too worked up over it.
Couldn't we use all that nukes to blast the asteroid off its collision course?
The Triton engines doesn't use nuclear weapons. It uses a nuclear reactor to heat the propellant for thrust. For the discussion on moving the asteriod, search the topic for my post on reviving the Orion project.
I think OP meant a propulsion system we could actually BUILD Einstein, that means we'll have to be able to afford it too.
You sir, are obviously an idiot who either can't read or can't be bothered to read. We DID build nuclear thermal engines. They were done. Ready to fly on the Saturn V. They simply weren't needed as the time, because the LHOx engines matured faster. Nearly ALL Mars missions call for NTR engines, which is why the TRITON got built.
As for nuclear pulse propulsion, most of the work has actually been done, including tests to verify the basic concept. (Test Video) Von Braun himself was a big proponent of launching a mini-Orion on the Saturn V. His idea was that the V would get things to orbit, and the Orions would take them to the solar system. Too bad our government stabbed him in the back by dismantling the Saturn V program...
It always amazes me how people will happily chime in with criticizim even in the face of overwhelming evidence. No wonder you posted as AC.
I was about to say you're right and I screwed up, but then I remembered what I was talking about: The depleted uranium shell used for the containment of the implosion detonation. Specifically, I was thinking of the following incident:
November 10, 1950 - A B-50 returning one of several US Mark IV bombs secretly deployed in Canada had engine trouble and jettisoned the weapon at 10,500 feet (3,200 m). The bomb, carrying the depleted uranium tamper but not its plutonium core ("pit"), was set to self-destruct at 2500' (750 m) and dropped over the St. Lawrence River off Rivière du Loup, Quebec. The explosion shook area residents and scattered nearly 100 pounds (45 kg) of uranium.[6]
Of course, my intial statement was misleading so I apologize for that. Just to make sure I got my facts straight, I looked up the weight of the largest nuclear bomb ever designed, the Tsar Bomba. It weighed in at about 27 tonnes. To send that anywhere but LEO, you would need a classical superbooster such as the Saturn V or Energia. We don't have any of those left, and it would provide only one detonation anyway. (Although at 50 megatonnes, it should have little trouble moving or even pulverizing the 46 megatonne rock.)
You could put millions of ion engines on the same surface and not stress the rock
I wasn't referring to the structural space, I was referring to the available surface area. i.e. 100,000 operating engines most likely wouldn't fit in the area you'd need to target.
One giant engine would have to be assembled in space. Heck, even 10 giant engines would have to be assembled in space.
Who said they'd have to be giant? My understanding of ION engines is that they're limited by power availablility, not size. With the proper power source you could probably get 20 newtons out of something not much bigger than today's ION engines.
BTW, you'd still need to get the engines there. Which means that someone in a really powerful ship is going to need to get out there and install them. Which probably still means an Orion launch. (At least if you want to do it in 6yrs time.)
The value of 50 gigatonnes of material parked in L4 or L5 cannot be overstated, even if it took a century or two to get it there.
Actually, it's 46 megatonnes. I screwed up the numbers. That's what I get for being in a hurry. As for its value, you'd have to do a composition check on it. If it's the same composition as our moon (likely), then what real value is it?
Hrm, those numbers look a little low to me. At current rates, launching 10,000 tons into orbit would cost something like $100-200 billion
What the hell? Why oh why doesn't the concept of "launching via blowing up big damn nuclear weapons" ever sink in with people? Forget the damn popcap rockets! We're talking about REAL power!
You would need about 100,000 of them to practially move the rock.
And therein lies the problem. You're talking about launching and installing an ungodly number of engines on that rock, whereas a light load of nuclear warheads could do the same job quicker. When you've only got six years, you don't have time to send a small army of astronauts to go install the things. Not to mention that 100.000 engines would probably stress the surface area of the asteriod. It's only 12x4 km, and you want ALL of those facing the same direction.
If you're going to take the ION route, it's a much better idea to simply build a bigger engine. Using either massive solar panels or a nuclear reactor, you could get far more thrust in a shorter period of time.
first a tonne is 1000kg so 4.6e10 kg is 46megatonnes
You're right. I seem to have misplaced a few zeros. Blast it all, I should have used the Google calculator. Still, that means our nukes will have a much better punch.:)
and secondly how are you going to lift 8,000,000 tonnes into orbit
Didn't pay attention to the original post, did you? It's called the Orion Project, and it works by using dozens of nuclear explosives for propulsion. 8 megatonnes is based on a combination of the upper limit of our 1960's hydrogen bomb tech and building materials tech.
at ~2tonnes a loft (using today's technologies) that's 4,000,000 launches
Who needs rockets? We don't need no stinkin' rockets!!! We've got nukes to blast us into orbit!;-)
Um except that all the links you provided talked about how DANGEROUS those methods are
No, they talk about the difficulties inherent in how dangerous they are. I don't know if you've checked up on the shuttle boosters any time recently, but they are EXTREMELY dangerous. The key is mitigate the danger in as many ways as possible.
BTW, most of what you're reading is the 1960's technology. The TRITON Trimodal link is an example of a "safe" engine built in modern times. Besides that, most of these engines are designed to be deployed in space where the extra radioactive pollution doesn't matter.
why so set on Orion? We have already built NERVA engine. The orion concept has only been proved with small conventional explosives afaik.
One word: MASS
There is simply no other superbooster that can lift thousands of tonnes from the bottom of the Earth's gravity well, all the way to the other end of the Solar System. And when you're talking about several tons of Uranium per hydrogen bomb, then the extra lifting power comes in handy.
That prohibition may also cover engines like Nuclear thermal if it releases radiactive material.
That's why the modern Trimodal TRITON engine *doesn't* release any materials. And once you get into space, it doesn't really matter how many nukes you blow up, as long as the debris is on an escape trajectory.
None the less, my point holds. The problem is *not* propulsion.
Why Orion? it's all new, untested technology. We're all engineers here - we know nothing works right the first time, especially not rocket science.
Because most of the groundwork has been done to death. There are engineers out there who could build an Orion in their sleep, partly because it's so damn simple.
The other issue is that there simply isn't enough time to build some other super-booster. Both the Saturn V and the Energia are out of commission due to a lack of production facilities. In the case of the Orion, you'd be building something far simpler and more along the lines of a traditional building or ship hull.
But you have 20 years
You'd have 6 years, because scientists will be uncertain until 2029.
kinetic kill weapons are not that a good idea, little thing called the "law of conservation of momentum" you're not going to move a 64 gigatonne something much by hitting it with the sort of mass you can afford to lift off of earth
Well, on the small side we could build an Orion of about 3000 metric tonnes. On the large side, we could build one of about 8,000,000 metric tonnes. Maybe it's just me, but I think 8 million tons + a significant amount of relative velocity could make a difference.:)
I agree with you though, it's something of wishful thinking to hit it with a kinetic kill. The most likely scenario would be to take up station near the asteroid and go through several iterations of planting and detonating hydrogen bombs. The idea won't be to break it up, but rather to provide propulsion. As such, the bombs would be detonated on or near the surface of the asteroid.
What you do need to do is shift it's orbit, you don't need a lot of mass or a big motor, just time - get started now, drop and iron drive and solar cells on the thing now and fire it up, maybe deliver some more mass in 5 years, carefully watch where it's going and eventually drop it into the sun or Jupiter
The only problem is that we don't have engines that can make a dent in 46 gigatons of mass. As you pointed out yourself, the law of conservation of momentum is going to have a lot to say about a constant 1/1000 lb of thrust against that much mass.
without some new propulsion technology i doubt even by 2029 we will have this option.
New propulsion technology? You mean like Nuclear Pulse, Nuclear Thermal (also in Trimodal for low atmospheric work), Nuclear Salt Water, M2P2, and hundreds of other mature, semi-mature, or proposed methods that we haven't used because it's "too damn expensive to get off this rock"?
in 2029, that is. By then it may be too late for effective counter-measures.
Bull. 2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare. If the asteroid actually posed clear and present danger, then a crash program to build an interceptor could be accomplished. With apologies to Pournelle and Niven (warning, associates link), the catch-22 is that we would have to give up our fear of the Orion. Using standard building practices + what we know of advanced hydrogen bomb design, we could potentially launch an Orion within three years. The options would be to either send it on an unmanned kinetic-impact course with the asteroid, or to send a team ala "Armageddon" (or some other lame stop-the-asteroid movie) to manually plant and detonate the charges.
If I'm reading the info correctly, the asteroid is a mere 46 gigatonnes. So as long as we get to it fast enough, there shouldn't be any difficulty in nudging it into a higher orbit. Of course, we may only be able to buy some time in the short term. Orbital mechanics is tricky, and not as simple as just "pushing" the asteroid out of the way. We may actually have to push it toward earth to slingshot it into a more acceptable trajectory.
One way or another, we have the tech. It's just scary as all hell to behold, and in a crash program would almost certainly add a small amount to the nuclear pollution that already exists on our planet. But if it's a choice between three random deaths from cancer or millions dead from a massive impact, I think the choice is fairly clear. Especially when the former is theoretical and the later is firm.
Slashdot Mirror
MODS: Will you please give this guy back a point of Karma or two? Just because he's got fruitcake ideas doesn't mean that he deserves to be silenced.
Parent Poster: You're way off base on the "problems" with X, but it does strike me that you're grasping for what the core issue is. The remaining issue with X.org/XFree86 is not with the controls, but rather with the monolithic architecture. X11 demands the full attention of the video card plus all other hardware it controls, and does not like to give up that control. The result is that X11 tends to be inflexible for work outside of "normal" desktop usage.
What X.org/XFree86 really need to do is separate the graphical and interface device layers from the desktop interface layer. i.e. It should be possible for any system program to be able to ask for exclusive video card access, even when the Desktop is not running. Currently, you have to chose between running X11 or using the external SuperVGA library.
You'll note that this is how the X server functions on systems like Sun Sparcs. On my UltraSparc, the system is ALWAYS in graphics mode. Running X just makes the X-Server take over the graphical screen. Very modular, very flexible. Not to mention that it places the graphics card support back in the OS drivers where it belongs, and not in a server with a focused purpose. Remember, the Unix philosophy is to keep everything in simple, bite sized chunks. The X.org/XFree86 implementation is the anti-thesis of that (although they are attempting to compensate with their portable driver loader design).
Just a friendly suggestion, but you might be able to keep people off your back if you occasionally add a news item. It doesn't have to be any big news (like a release), just something to let everyone know "Hey, we're still here! Don't bug us about it!" It can be as simple as a status report or "I had this cool idea and I'm working on coding it." It could even be the line, "Yes, we're still here." (Although that won't keep anyone's interest for very long. ;-))
Just my two cents.
Perhaps the reason the effects have gone unused on other platforms is because they weren't part of the platform.
Nonsense. The Mac has its Genie effect, both Windows and Mac can do window transparencies, and both systems have odd-shaped window support. None of these effects have gone to much use, because they are little more than eye candy. Which is primarily what I'm seeing in these videos. The Enlightenment interface doesn't even add the cool "Dock" animation abilities into it's interface. Instead it requires the user to manually resize icons until they're happy with the results. The only problem is, I have no idea how anyone would find this useful.
Compare that to the following concepts:
1. The icon you're hovering over expands to help you see what you're clicking on and hit the target correctly. (Mac OS X Dock.)
2. Windows can be flipped over so that notes can be placed for later reference. (Sun Looking Glass)
3. Objects on a table-screen can be moved by dragging your finger, rotated by moving a second finger outside of the object being dragged, and copied by dragging two fingers around the object(s) to highlight an area. (See here)
See how much more useful those concepts are than "floppy windows"? That's not to say that the base technology isn't useful. It's damned useful, and will be the basis for future desktops. But I see no actual UI research, and the tech has been available on X11 for several years now.
Yeah wasn't there a Y windows in the works at one point.
You mean this?
Fresco was the other big contender.
The Linux Kernel is so flexable in how you can customize it for the hardware situation, its a shame you can't do the same thing for X.
Modern X actually does let you plug-in, plug-out all kinds of useless^H useful crap. It has actually matured into a fairly decent system, network transparency or no.
Where this article falls flat is on trying to make us believe that any of what we're seeing is "new". We've seen it all before, just with fewer cheap effects (e.g. the "wobbly windows").
1995: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo!
1998: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo!
2000: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo!
2005: We'll have really neat X11 desktops Real Soon Now(TM)! See, here's a demo!
Nope, never heard these promises before...
Joking aside, I didn't see anything in the photos or videos that's revolutionary. Enlightenment looks like its usual "prrreeeeetttyyy" self, and X11 is shown with various transparency and warping effects that have been available on other platforms but have been largely unused.
The question of "Why have they gone unused?" seems to be pretty well answered by some of these videos. i.e. None of the applications seem to do much of anything different than current applications do. The only difference is that they have a "cool" interface. All I can say to that is, Kai's Power Tools had a "cool" interface as well. Didn't get them (or hundreds of other "me too!" programs) very far.
The truely interesting projects I've seen lately are:
1. Sun's Looking Glass Project. While it's not revolutionary in of itself, it is an excellent evolutionary step in user interface improvements. Sun really took the right path by keeping with existing Desktop designs, but improving on existing concepts like sticky notes and window shading (the ability to "fold up" a window). They've also left the door wide open for developers to leverage the new desktop for new UI concepts that fully utilize the 3D abilities of the system.
2. There was an "Ask Slashdot" a few days ago with a guy who was working on the mother of all touchpads. It was literally more of an interactive tactical plot that could have amazing uses in collaberative work.
I can sell you our special TOTAL brand of CARP for a mere $32.59. Buy now, and I'll even throw in these TOTAL GUPPIES, guaranteed to make a tasty snack for your virtual player!
Sorry, maybe I was not specific enough. One can cram the equivalent of a one year course on WII at a University in a week of off-hand research. That's not quite the same thing as performing in-depth research for a book or research project. I'm not in any way suggesting that the Internet can replace that sort of data gathering. However, it can help facilitate bringing you in contact with the various people who have the experiences and information you need. :-)
I'd be glad if they found such evidence. It would provide the best possible excuse for a manned mission.
Not if anyone stopped to think for a moment. Back in the early 90's, before the big announcement about the meteor from Mars with bacteria on it, a well known Christian scientist (Hugh Ross, I think) was asked if he thought we'd find life on Mars. His response was that he had little doubt that we'd find microbial life on Mars. When asked to elaborate, he explained that some of the ejecta from meteor strikes on Earth has most likely washed back through the Solar System, and that various forms of microbes are likely to have been spread that way.
He has a point.
So really it's hard to blame Berman or any of the successors to Roddenberry for the past 2 series completely, because as we should know, no matter how good of a story you write, it can only go as far as the limitations given to you by Big-Wig Hollywood.
l igion concept was all the network's idea? Or how about the casting of Mr. "Gay" Chakotay? (The actor stated that his character was intended to be gay, but the producers ended up backing off the idea.) What about such memorable lines as "I can remember being born!"? Or the concept for a series where the technology is almost as good as that of two centuries later? Or idiotic "firsts" like a transporter malfunction? "Ooooo, ahhhh, stuuuuuupiiiid."
So the Indian planet/Weseley Traveller idea was all the network's fault? Or the rip-off-B5-but-without-a-plot-and-a-really-bad-re
I will agree that the studio did some dumb things (like changing the ending to the Enterprise episode about the two races evolving on the same planet), but the studio's decisions were far eclipsed by the stupidity of the producers. I mean, these are the same people who do a prequel while being PROUD of the fact that they've never seen the original series! WTF?
Oh, and did I ever mention how much I HATE the buzzword "species"? And if I hear the terms "EPS Conduit" or "Deflector Dish" one more time, I swear I'm going to hurl.
What does surprise me is that Paramount has refused to accept the demand from the fans, including 3.1 MILLION dollars raised to fund it. It makes you wonder what they are up to, and why they are allowed to monopolize the Star Trek world in such a way.
It seems pretty obvious to me. Paramount leadership has woken up to the fact that Berman has been destroying the series for over a decade. Prior to now, such destruction was at least profitable. Now that margins are thin, Paramount intends to give Trek a rest.
Why the "rest", you ask? Simple. The problem with just kicking the producer off the show is that the machinery alredy in place continues to produce the same old crap. To actually *change* things, you need to either hire someone who's willing to duke it out with the staff (difficult and doesn't always work), or you can wait until they are fully disbanded and then start over from scratch. Paramount has wisely chosen the later.
Makes you wonder what Roddenberry would say at this point.
He doesn't have to say much. The ISS is currently being powered by the spin imparted on his ashes.
Pulse jets are completely different from Nuclear Pulse drives. I suggest you look them up on Wikipedia for more info.
FWIW, all the information I have says that the Aurora either never existed or doesn't exist anymore. If I were you, I wouldn't get too worked up over it.
Couldn't we use all that nukes to blast the asteroid off its collision course?
The Triton engines doesn't use nuclear weapons. It uses a nuclear reactor to heat the propellant for thrust. For the discussion on moving the asteriod, search the topic for my post on reviving the Orion project.
I think OP meant a propulsion system we could actually BUILD Einstein, that means we'll have to be able to afford it too.
You sir, are obviously an idiot who either can't read or can't be bothered to read. We DID build nuclear thermal engines. They were done. Ready to fly on the Saturn V. They simply weren't needed as the time, because the LHOx engines matured faster. Nearly ALL Mars missions call for NTR engines, which is why the TRITON got built.
As for nuclear pulse propulsion, most of the work has actually been done, including tests to verify the basic concept. (Test Video) Von Braun himself was a big proponent of launching a mini-Orion on the Saturn V. His idea was that the V would get things to orbit, and the Orions would take them to the solar system. Too bad our government stabbed him in the back by dismantling the Saturn V program...
It always amazes me how people will happily chime in with criticizim even in the face of overwhelming evidence. No wonder you posted as AC.
Several tons of Uranium per hydrogen bomb?
I was about to say you're right and I screwed up, but then I remembered what I was talking about: The depleted uranium shell used for the containment of the implosion detonation. Specifically, I was thinking of the following incident:
November 10, 1950 - A B-50 returning one of several US Mark IV bombs secretly deployed in Canada had engine trouble and jettisoned the weapon at 10,500 feet (3,200 m). The bomb, carrying the depleted uranium tamper but not its plutonium core ("pit"), was set to self-destruct at 2500' (750 m) and dropped over the St. Lawrence River off Rivière du Loup, Quebec. The explosion shook area residents and scattered nearly 100 pounds (45 kg) of uranium.[6]
The bomb weighed about 10,800 pounds. More Info
Of course, my intial statement was misleading so I apologize for that. Just to make sure I got my facts straight, I looked up the weight of the largest nuclear bomb ever designed, the Tsar Bomba. It weighed in at about 27 tonnes. To send that anywhere but LEO, you would need a classical superbooster such as the Saturn V or Energia. We don't have any of those left, and it would provide only one detonation anyway. (Although at 50 megatonnes, it should have little trouble moving or even pulverizing the 46 megatonne rock.)
You could put millions of ion engines on the same surface and not stress the rock
I wasn't referring to the structural space, I was referring to the available surface area. i.e. 100,000 operating engines most likely wouldn't fit in the area you'd need to target.
One giant engine would have to be assembled in space. Heck, even 10 giant engines would have to be assembled in space.
Who said they'd have to be giant? My understanding of ION engines is that they're limited by power availablility, not size. With the proper power source you could probably get 20 newtons out of something not much bigger than today's ION engines.
BTW, you'd still need to get the engines there. Which means that someone in a really powerful ship is going to need to get out there and install them. Which probably still means an Orion launch. (At least if you want to do it in 6yrs time.)
The value of 50 gigatonnes of material parked in L4 or L5 cannot be overstated, even if it took a century or two to get it there.
Actually, it's 46 megatonnes. I screwed up the numbers. That's what I get for being in a hurry. As for its value, you'd have to do a composition check on it. If it's the same composition as our moon (likely), then what real value is it?
so you will be letting a whole bunch of these nukes off in the atmosphere?
To save a few million lives, hell yeah.
these are perfectly clean bombs?
Nope. Hydrogen bombs used for this would be generally cleaner, but the guesstimates stated that about 3 people would get cancer after every launch.
Wait, didn't I cover this in my original post? Oh yes, I did.
Hrm, those numbers look a little low to me. At current rates, launching 10,000 tons into orbit would cost something like $100-200 billion
What the hell? Why oh why doesn't the concept of "launching via blowing up big damn nuclear weapons" ever sink in with people? Forget the damn popcap rockets! We're talking about REAL power!
You would need about 100,000 of them to practially move the rock.
And therein lies the problem. You're talking about launching and installing an ungodly number of engines on that rock, whereas a light load of nuclear warheads could do the same job quicker. When you've only got six years, you don't have time to send a small army of astronauts to go install the things. Not to mention that 100.000 engines would probably stress the surface area of the asteriod. It's only 12x4 km, and you want ALL of those facing the same direction.
If you're going to take the ION route, it's a much better idea to simply build a bigger engine. Using either massive solar panels or a nuclear reactor, you could get far more thrust in a shorter period of time.
first a tonne is 1000kg so 4.6e10 kg is 46megatonnes
:)
;-)
You're right. I seem to have misplaced a few zeros. Blast it all, I should have used the Google calculator. Still, that means our nukes will have a much better punch.
and secondly how are you going to lift 8,000,000 tonnes into orbit
Didn't pay attention to the original post, did you? It's called the Orion Project, and it works by using dozens of nuclear explosives for propulsion. 8 megatonnes is based on a combination of the upper limit of our 1960's hydrogen bomb tech and building materials tech.
at ~2tonnes a loft (using today's technologies) that's 4,000,000 launches
Who needs rockets? We don't need no stinkin' rockets!!! We've got nukes to blast us into orbit!
Um except that all the links you provided talked about how DANGEROUS those methods are
No, they talk about the difficulties inherent in how dangerous they are. I don't know if you've checked up on the shuttle boosters any time recently, but they are EXTREMELY dangerous. The key is mitigate the danger in as many ways as possible.
BTW, most of what you're reading is the 1960's technology. The TRITON Trimodal link is an example of a "safe" engine built in modern times. Besides that, most of these engines are designed to be deployed in space where the extra radioactive pollution doesn't matter.
why so set on Orion? We have already built NERVA engine. The orion concept has only been proved with small conventional explosives afaik.
One word: MASS
There is simply no other superbooster that can lift thousands of tonnes from the bottom of the Earth's gravity well, all the way to the other end of the Solar System. And when you're talking about several tons of Uranium per hydrogen bomb, then the extra lifting power comes in handy.
That prohibition may also cover engines like Nuclear thermal if it releases radiactive material.
That's why the modern Trimodal TRITON engine *doesn't* release any materials. And once you get into space, it doesn't really matter how many nukes you blow up, as long as the debris is on an escape trajectory.
None the less, my point holds. The problem is *not* propulsion.
Why Orion? it's all new, untested technology. We're all engineers here - we know nothing works right the first time, especially not rocket science.
:)
Because most of the groundwork has been done to death. There are engineers out there who could build an Orion in their sleep, partly because it's so damn simple.
The other issue is that there simply isn't enough time to build some other super-booster. Both the Saturn V and the Energia are out of commission due to a lack of production facilities. In the case of the Orion, you'd be building something far simpler and more along the lines of a traditional building or ship hull.
But you have 20 years
You'd have 6 years, because scientists will be uncertain until 2029.
kinetic kill weapons are not that a good idea, little thing called the "law of conservation of momentum" you're not going to move a 64 gigatonne something much by hitting it with the sort of mass you can afford to lift off of earth
Well, on the small side we could build an Orion of about 3000 metric tonnes. On the large side, we could build one of about 8,000,000 metric tonnes. Maybe it's just me, but I think 8 million tons + a significant amount of relative velocity could make a difference.
I agree with you though, it's something of wishful thinking to hit it with a kinetic kill. The most likely scenario would be to take up station near the asteroid and go through several iterations of planting and detonating hydrogen bombs. The idea won't be to break it up, but rather to provide propulsion. As such, the bombs would be detonated on or near the surface of the asteroid.
What you do need to do is shift it's orbit, you don't need a lot of mass or a big motor, just time - get started now, drop and iron drive and solar cells on the thing now and fire it up, maybe deliver some more mass in 5 years, carefully watch where it's going and eventually drop it into the sun or Jupiter
The only problem is that we don't have engines that can make a dent in 46 gigatons of mass. As you pointed out yourself, the law of conservation of momentum is going to have a lot to say about a constant 1/1000 lb of thrust against that much mass.
without some new propulsion technology i doubt even by 2029 we will have this option.
New propulsion technology? You mean like Nuclear Pulse, Nuclear Thermal (also in Trimodal for low atmospheric work), Nuclear Salt Water, M2P2, and hundreds of other mature, semi-mature, or proposed methods that we haven't used because it's "too damn expensive to get off this rock"?
Propulsion is *not* the problem.
in 2029, that is. By then it may be too late for effective counter-measures.
Bull. 2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare. If the asteroid actually posed clear and present danger, then a crash program to build an interceptor could be accomplished. With apologies to Pournelle and Niven (warning, associates link), the catch-22 is that we would have to give up our fear of the Orion. Using standard building practices + what we know of advanced hydrogen bomb design, we could potentially launch an Orion within three years. The options would be to either send it on an unmanned kinetic-impact course with the asteroid, or to send a team ala "Armageddon" (or some other lame stop-the-asteroid movie) to manually plant and detonate the charges.
If I'm reading the info correctly, the asteroid is a mere 46 gigatonnes. So as long as we get to it fast enough, there shouldn't be any difficulty in nudging it into a higher orbit. Of course, we may only be able to buy some time in the short term. Orbital mechanics is tricky, and not as simple as just "pushing" the asteroid out of the way. We may actually have to push it toward earth to slingshot it into a more acceptable trajectory.
One way or another, we have the tech. It's just scary as all hell to behold, and in a crash program would almost certainly add a small amount to the nuclear pollution that already exists on our planet. But if it's a choice between three random deaths from cancer or millions dead from a massive impact, I think the choice is fairly clear. Especially when the former is theoretical and the later is firm.