Maybe you didn't notice my post referred to an article on The Onion. Are you saying that the writers of The Onion's articles have small vocabularies?
Having lived in Wisconsin for a good portion of my life, I am well aware of the Onion and its shenanigans. Yes, they make use of a very poor vocabulary. Yes, the jokes are forced. In all practicality, most Onion articles are more amusing as jokes to play on friends.
"Did you see the paper!? Boris Yeltsin has gone off his rocker and turned over control of Russia to a flock of wild geese!"
Yep, it's lots of fun when you're about 16. It gets less and less funny as time goes on.
If I understand that diagram right, wouldn't Solar Flares account for a large amount of the oxygen plasma release? Given the temperatures involved, I also assume that the oxygen and hydrogen plasma don't mix until cooled. i.e. When they're already far from the outer fringes of the star.
You'd have a hard time selling the fact that id engines are more popular than Epic ones anymore.
Unlikely. If you lumped all the games based on Id's engines together, and then lumped all the games based on Unreal's engines together, Id would easily win on shear numbers. Remember, there are companies based almost entirely on making use of Id's latest and greatest engine, chief among them being Raven Software.
Adding the F* word at every place possible does not make for "funny" prose. It simply means that someone has too small of a vocabulary to say anything enlightening or truly amusing.
Water should be pretty common near stars as Hydrogen is the fuel which runs them. When combined with oxygen pulled near the star by gravitation, you find yourself with water. The difficulty is in finding it in liquid form. Planets and planetoids near a star will have their water blown or boiled away. This water will then travel toward the outer system. If no large body exists in the star's "temperate zone", then the water will continue on. If it hits a body outside of the "temperate zone", it will remain as ice.
Everything is relative. Look at that list and note that a large number of items are Unreal games or technology platforms rather than third party licenses. Of the remaining items, only a few were ever market hits. In addition, this list appears to intentionally confuse the Unreal and Unreal II engines, thus increasing the number of games that have been licensed. Compare that to Quake III. While I can't find a full list, here's a few Quake III based hit titles from memory:
- Quake III Arena - Elite Force - Elite Force II - Return to Castle Wolfenstein - Medal of Honor: Allied Assault - Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Spearhead - Soldier of Fortune II - Jedi Knights II - Alice - (More I'm forgetting)
So this is competing with the crytec engine? How do you think it will stack up?
To be precise, Cryptec is competing with the Doom III engine. Id has a reputation in the gaming industry as being THE place to go for 3D engines. Their only true competitor has been the Unreal engine, which has had a relatively poor showing in the market. If anyone wants to unseat Id, they're going to have to try very hard.
Not that I care really as I haven't played a FPS since Quake 2 with any real zeal.
You go through one level shooting anything that moves with various weapons, you've gone through them all.
That's how I felt about FPS until games like Elite Force came out. Elite Force and Elite Force II provide you with more than just a game, they provide you with a story-line and deep immersion in the fictional environment. There's nothing quite like opening the shuttle bay doors of the Enterprise-E, then loading onto an assault shuttle for a mission. Similarly, spy missions bring a new dimension to the gameplay that have often been strived for, but never previously executed with any degree of success.
I don't trust Microsoft as far as I can kick them. People get all hot and bothered about looking at Java or Solaris code. They claim that Sun will turn around and prosecute them for "stealing" Sun trade secrets. Yet to my knowledge, Sun has NEVER prosecuted a customer. Microsoft OTOH, keeps the BSA guard dog around, and sicks them on anyone who *might* be guilty of not paying Microsoft their protection money^W^W taxes.
I know who's source code I'd rather be looking at.
Although most (all?) new machines are going to meet these specs.
Yeah, but that leaves a lot of us in the dust. I'm still running a custom built PIII 733 w/512MB RAM, 80 gigs of disk, and a GeForce2 GTS from three years ago. I haven't bothered to upgrade, because the machine is still a strong contender against modern machines.
The real secret here is that I don't think Id is planning for everyone to run out and buy Doom III now. I think he's releasing it as a technology demo (as Quake III was) and then will market it to gaming companies as the ultimate way to create their games. Since the lead time on new games is at least a year, "common" computing should pretty much catch up in the interim.
It's too bad, because all those Quake III based games were still running fine on my little 'ol machine. I guess I'll eventually have to upgrade or miss out on all the upcoming Gaming Goodness(TM). Elite Force III would be awesome...
You seem to have no problem lumping "programmers" into a category,
Actually, I didn't "lump them" in so much as "define the term". A programmer is simply someone who can program a machine. The term does not imply if they are an engineer.
but seem to think that any computer work that extends outside of logical proofs is the work of an engineer. That's simply untrue. When I architect, design, and write a program, it's the work of a computer scientist, not an engineer.
How so? You've made a statement, but you've failed to back it up with a logical explanation. A scientist is someone who researches the sciences. An engineer is someone who creates engines. The distinction is inherent in the language that constructs it. That's not to say that you can't have someone who wears both hats. (God forbid that anyone be able to branch out from their specialty. We'd soon end up with shoe tiests!;-) ) It's often very important for a scientist to understand construction and engineering. But when it comes to actually building an end product, you tend to want an engineer. Someone who knows how to account for the million variables that don't occur in the lab.
And yes that differs from your dime-a-dozen programmers that spit out uncommented, undocumented spaghetti code and non-optimized garbage code that runs slow as molasses and has hundreds of bugs laced throughout. To be a "good" programmer requires the CS theory and background, the algorithms, the knowhow, the ability to actually design something rather than just churn out crap.
Ok, you're not making sense here. You're a computer scientist because you're a programmer with computer sciences background. You architect and engineer things instead of hacking them together. Doesn't that make you an engineer?
I don't relish the math in CS, frankly I hate most of it...inductive proofs incur my seething hatred. But I still think of myself as a Computer Scientist, because frankly I'm not a Math major, nor are the two degrees equivalent (though in the past they largely were).
You're not helping yourself.
Once again, I think the term "software engineer" is a bastardization of the "engineer" term. Practically every engineering field out there required SOME knowledge of things such as Dynamics, Materials Science, Flows, etc...whether you're a Civil, a Mech, an EE...you ALL get this basic background because it's a common thread to the science of building things and working with materials (THAT's engineering...creating things from materials). I'm very annoyed that it somehow wormed its way into CS.
Ah! There's the problem! You're confused by the colloquial usage of "Software Engineer". Allow me to explain: When a large number of untrained "developers" hit the scene, it was decided that some form of term was needed to differentiate them from trained professionals. The term "software engineer" was batted around as a possibility. Unfortunately, it was widely misused and had a short life as a term for programmers.
What I am trying to do is define proper semantics for software development that meet the traditional usage in the science and engineering fields. Allow me to draw a few parallels for you:
Programmer/Hacker == Tinkerer - Tinkers with a machine until it does what they want it to do. Often good material for an engineer.
Software Developer == Construction Worker - A person who constructs machines professionally, according to the plans laid before them.
Software Engineer == Aerospace/Construction/Automobile/etc. Engineer - A person who designs or architects machines according to the needs of a user or group of users.
Computer Scientist == Physics/Math Scientist - A person who formulates theories about the nature of reality and attempts to prove those theories to advance the knowledge of mankind.
We're going to start calling architects "Floorplan engineers"? or musicians "Lyrical
What is really interesting is that back in the 1960's NASA had plans for an even bigger rocket than the Saturn V. I think it was called the Jupiter rocket or something like that. About 5x-10x the lift capacity of the Saturn V.
I think you're a bit confused. "Jupiter" was the name of some ICBMs of the time. As a fast track to building one of the biggest rockets of all time, the engines from these ICBMs were clustered together into a single shell known as "Juno V". Believe it or not "Juno V" eventually took us to the moon! You see, Von Braun had suggested a name change after the Juno V diverged enough from the original rocket platform. The new name? Saturn V. (See: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Saturn _rocket.html)
The experiments were so successful that clustered rockets are still a common way to launch payloads. From the small Deltas, to the large Energias, they all provide more power and greater mission flexibility by offering a larger number of rocket engines instead of a few very large engines.
Here's what I know about Von Braun's future plans for space travel: Von Braun wanted to launch an Orion on the back of a Saturn V. This would allow the Saturn V to continue as a practical launch solution, and allow the Orion to become a practical form of interplanetary travel. (Actually, the Orion they would have launched would have been the least efficient design, but it still would have been a significant improvement over chemical rockets.) About that time, the government told NASA to shut down the Saturn V program and Von Braun left in disgust.
Now the Sea Dragon was a super-simple rocket that could have carried a massive tonnage (~550 metric tons) for about 1/4th the cost of the Saturn V. It was conceived of in 1962 as a study on how to make rocket launches cheaper. Again, by the time the study was taken seriously, the US was already winding down its production of large rockets. (The concept was later proven as the "Excalibur" rocket, but was largely ignored.)
Following the rise of the Regean era of space travel, NASA began research into using the Shuttle's engines as a massive booster. (The Shuttle's engines are currently some of the most powerful rockets in use today.) The result was the Shuttle C program; a pure cargo Shuttle.
With Clinton's Presidency, plans for space stations, moon bases, and Mars missions were all scaled back or put on hold. It wasn't until Clinton's term was up that NASA again began looking at ways of getting to Mars. Their current design is the Magnum launch vehicle which looks suspiciously like everything the Energia program was trying to accomplish.
With RISC one had less instructions, but each instruction executed in less clock cycles, resulting in a faster computer.
Technically, RISC chips were supposed to execute all instructions in ONE cycle. This simplified the chip architecture, allowing it to scale up much farther. The downside was that it put the onus on the compiler writer to produce efficient code. (MIPS is a perfect example of this architecture.) All he had to do was make sure that fewer instructions were executed per task, and the code would run faster.
That is, until the chip designers started introducing SuperScaler and Out of Order execution. You see, simplifying the chip design provided chip designers with a way to add new optimizations in how instructions were loaded and executed. Unfortunately, this again meant more work for the compiler writer. Now he not only had to optimize the number of instructions, but he also had to optimize the ordering so that multiple instructions could be executed simultaneously or out of order.
To the first to deliver an Infinite Improbability Drive.
Could someone calculate the improbability factor of someone making a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference on Slashdot? What's that? It has a very low improbability? Well then, I'm just going to hop on the Heart of Gold and turn on the improbability drive. Then I'd NEVER have to hear ANOTHER LAME REFERENCE to H2G2 AGAIN.
I'm totally onboard for NERVA, but keep in mind that NERVA wasn't done, per se, when the program folded. There were some significant problems relating to hydrogen eroding the graphite engine cores that still remained to be solved.
No argument here, but the project did produce real technology that works today. The graphite problem was not a show-stopper, and the Phoebes engine DID burn at maximum power for 10 minutes. That alone is sufficient power to send a rocket on a Mars bound trajectory. (Especially if multiple engines are used.) Not to mention that 40 years of material sciences should help cure that specific problem.
We *could* just wait around for Gas Core engines to reach maturity, but then we might be waiting a few decades. It's much better to use today's tech now, and let the knowledge gained through that use trickle into creating next-gen engines faster.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to fund a prototype of Zubrin's Nuclear Salt Water Rocket. 7,000-10,000 sec ISP! We'd be cruising the solar system like it was our back yard!
I think what would be great would be a (relatively) protest-proof method of transporting nuclear materials into space. There are always going to be leftists who oppose it on religious grounds, but if we can satisfy the reasonable people with objections, then the road to space will stretch out in front of us.
Interestingly enough, opposition to nuclear tech is waning. A recent study by Bisconti Research for the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 64% of respondents are in favor of nuclear power. That's a huge jump from 49% back in 1983. I think it's because a new generation has grown up without the fear of the Cold War, and the old timers are starting to forget what that was like. Without the fear of nuclear weapons, they have far fewer qualms about nuclear tech.
My guess is that Rutan's going to have to prove an orbital flyer before they actually take him seriously. Opponents will simply point out that the stresses and heat problems go up exponentially with speed. Since speed is what you need to achieve orbit (much more important than altitude), he'll have a hard time convincing the opponents.
What SpaceShipOne did do is prove that space travel is open to development by small companies. Once he claims the X-Prize, Rutan should have no trouble in finding investors for an orbital space-plane.
Didn't we have this talk over on NuclearSpace.com? I think we were discussing a Sea Wolf class shell.
Honestly, there's nothing all that hard about getting a big space craft up there. There's just the problem of convincing someone to do it. The US Government hasn't wanted big launches (think hundreds to thousands of metric tones) since the Apollo missions, and even went as far as to dismantle the Saturn V program. The Sea Dragon program showed that it could build a Sea Wold-like shell as a super cheap rocket, but no one was willing to exchange massive payload for the cost reductions. Thus the Sea Dragon didn't get the time of day.
And now Energia is sitting on a factory that could start producing the Energia Vulcan for the small cost of an 11 million dollar renovation, but the US wouldn't possibly even think of paying the Russians for a final anything. The Proton rocket only launches because Lockheed Martin (IIRC) bought it out.
Let's talk about this topic again when someone with money is serious about putting real tonnage into orbit.
Let's make a challange to transport humans to Mars by 2030, wouldn't that be fun?
It would be a complete gas! That is, as long as we use Nuclear Rockets. I *don't* want to have the travelers sitting around for a year and a half while they wait to get to their destination. A NERVA rocket (1960's tech!) could get the astronauts there faster and cheaper. If properly developed, it could even make Mars trips practical.
Personally, I'm thinking that NASA needs to be financially broken down by:
- Science (Deep Space Probes, etc.) - Engineering (New *cough* propulsion methods) - Vehicles and Launch Support
Congress would fund each of these individually, according to their needs. This way the long term projects (Remote Terrestrial Observation, or exploring Europa) would not be confused with shorter term projects (vehicle design) and Congress won't can the projects because "they're taking too much time and money".
In addition, Congress can then see a very real return on the money they spend. Invest in a new engine, see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a vehicle (must be based on existing components put out by the engineering department) and see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a science probe and see the results 10 years later (as the plan calls for).
I'd be modding you down right now for sheer stupidity if I still had the points. Nobody cares that you already posted it, so STFU.
And I'd be modding you down for not paying attention. The parent poster replied to *me* about something *I* had already said. Thus *his* post was redundant.
By the way, the phrase "high quality built in spell checker" is an example of an oxymoron (it's also an example of incorrect punctuation, but since it was written be someone who benefits from a spell checker, that shouldn't surprise anyone).
It *is* an example of bad punctuation (I was feeling too lazy to type "high-quality, built-in spell checker), but I fail to see how it's an oxymoron. Are you attempting to claim that no spell checker in existence is of high quality?
However, pure geekiness is best satisfied by his work in the Robots series, which he also linked to the Foundation series later.
I think it depends on how you define "geekiness". If you define "love Star Wars" as true "geekiness", then Asimov's ideas on Robots are truly insightful. If you define "geekiness" as "love of science and thought provoking literature", then Asimov's ideas on robotics are only mildly interesting. Many of his stories completely ignored the advances being made in electronics when they were written.
Rather, his works stood out for his ability to close many of his stories in a very ironic fashion. His short stories exemplify this point: A young girl who wants to read about schools with other kids instead of learning from her robot teacher; A universal computer that figures out how to reverse entropy just in time for the Universe to end, so it says "Let there be light!"
Very few authors had Asimov's sensibilities. Making him a part of "Star Wars" science fiction is a grave injustice to his abilities as an author, scientist, and philosopher.
I already made that point. Personally, I'm willing to forgive him. It *is* a complex word, and he *did* manage to use it in context. The later part is particularly impressive.
In case anyone thinks the parent is joking, allow me to assure you that he is quite serious. I've never actually read the book, but isn't that more of Heinlein's domain?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you didn't notice my post referred to an article on The Onion. Are you saying that the writers of The Onion's articles have small vocabularies?
Having lived in Wisconsin for a good portion of my life, I am well aware of the Onion and its shenanigans. Yes, they make use of a very poor vocabulary. Yes, the jokes are forced. In all practicality, most Onion articles are more amusing as jokes to play on friends.
"Did you see the paper!? Boris Yeltsin has gone off his rocker and turned over control of Russia to a flock of wild geese!"
Yep, it's lots of fun when you're about 16. It gets less and less funny as time goes on.
If I understand that diagram right, wouldn't Solar Flares account for a large amount of the oxygen plasma release? Given the temperatures involved, I also assume that the oxygen and hydrogen plasma don't mix until cooled. i.e. When they're already far from the outer fringes of the star.
It was certainly funnier than your post, vocabulary or not.
Obviously I was not trying to be funny. Guess what, your post wasn't funny either. Does that mean that you also Fail It(TM)?
That's not to say that I haven't been known to be funny from time to time.
You'd have a hard time selling the fact that id engines are more popular than Epic ones anymore.
Unlikely. If you lumped all the games based on Id's engines together, and then lumped all the games based on Unreal's engines together, Id would easily win on shear numbers. Remember, there are companies based almost entirely on making use of Id's latest and greatest engine, chief among them being Raven Software.
Adding the F* word at every place possible does not make for "funny" prose. It simply means that someone has too small of a vocabulary to say anything enlightening or truly amusing.
Water should be pretty common near stars as Hydrogen is the fuel which runs them. When combined with oxygen pulled near the star by gravitation, you find yourself with water. The difficulty is in finding it in liquid form. Planets and planetoids near a star will have their water blown or boiled away. This water will then travel toward the outer system. If no large body exists in the star's "temperate zone", then the water will continue on. If it hits a body outside of the "temperate zone", it will remain as ice.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Everything is relative. Look at that list and note that a large number of items are Unreal games or technology platforms rather than third party licenses. Of the remaining items, only a few were ever market hits. In addition, this list appears to intentionally confuse the Unreal and Unreal II engines, thus increasing the number of games that have been licensed. Compare that to Quake III. While I can't find a full list, here's a few Quake III based hit titles from memory:
- Quake III Arena
- Elite Force
- Elite Force II
- Return to Castle Wolfenstein
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Spearhead
- Soldier of Fortune II
- Jedi Knights II
- Alice
- (More I'm forgetting)
So this is competing with the crytec engine? How do you think it will stack up?
To be precise, Cryptec is competing with the Doom III engine. Id has a reputation in the gaming industry as being THE place to go for 3D engines. Their only true competitor has been the Unreal engine, which has had a relatively poor showing in the market. If anyone wants to unseat Id, they're going to have to try very hard.
Not that I care really as I haven't played a FPS since Quake 2 with any real zeal.
You go through one level shooting anything that moves with various weapons, you've gone through them all.
That's how I felt about FPS until games like Elite Force came out. Elite Force and Elite Force II provide you with more than just a game, they provide you with a story-line and deep immersion in the fictional environment. There's nothing quite like opening the shuttle bay doors of the Enterprise-E, then loading onto an assault shuttle for a mission. Similarly, spy missions bring a new dimension to the gameplay that have often been strived for, but never previously executed with any degree of success.
I don't trust Microsoft as far as I can kick them. People get all hot and bothered about looking at Java or Solaris code. They claim that Sun will turn around and prosecute them for "stealing" Sun trade secrets. Yet to my knowledge, Sun has NEVER prosecuted a customer. Microsoft OTOH, keeps the BSA guard dog around, and sicks them on anyone who *might* be guilty of not paying Microsoft their protection money^W^W taxes.
I know who's source code I'd rather be looking at.
Although most (all?) new machines are going to meet these specs.
Yeah, but that leaves a lot of us in the dust. I'm still running a custom built PIII 733 w/512MB RAM, 80 gigs of disk, and a GeForce2 GTS from three years ago. I haven't bothered to upgrade, because the machine is still a strong contender against modern machines.
The real secret here is that I don't think Id is planning for everyone to run out and buy Doom III now. I think he's releasing it as a technology demo (as Quake III was) and then will market it to gaming companies as the ultimate way to create their games. Since the lead time on new games is at least a year, "common" computing should pretty much catch up in the interim.
It's too bad, because all those Quake III based games were still running fine on my little 'ol machine. I guess I'll eventually have to upgrade or miss out on all the upcoming Gaming Goodness(TM). Elite Force III would be awesome...
You seem to have no problem lumping "programmers" into a category,
;-) ) It's often very important for a scientist to understand construction and engineering. But when it comes to actually building an end product, you tend to want an engineer. Someone who knows how to account for the million variables that don't occur in the lab.
Actually, I didn't "lump them" in so much as "define the term". A programmer is simply someone who can program a machine. The term does not imply if they are an engineer.
but seem to think that any computer work that extends outside of logical proofs is the work of an engineer. That's simply untrue. When I architect, design, and write a program, it's the work of a computer scientist, not an engineer.
How so? You've made a statement, but you've failed to back it up with a logical explanation. A scientist is someone who researches the sciences. An engineer is someone who creates engines. The distinction is inherent in the language that constructs it. That's not to say that you can't have someone who wears both hats. (God forbid that anyone be able to branch out from their specialty. We'd soon end up with shoe tiests!
And yes that differs from your dime-a-dozen programmers that spit out uncommented, undocumented spaghetti code and non-optimized garbage code that runs slow as molasses and has hundreds of bugs laced throughout. To be a "good" programmer requires the CS theory and background, the algorithms, the knowhow, the ability to actually design something rather than just churn out crap.
Ok, you're not making sense here. You're a computer scientist because you're a programmer with computer sciences background. You architect and engineer things instead of hacking them together. Doesn't that make you an engineer?
I don't relish the math in CS, frankly I hate most of it...inductive proofs incur my seething hatred. But I still think of myself as a Computer Scientist, because frankly I'm not a Math major, nor are the two degrees equivalent (though in the past they largely were).
You're not helping yourself.
Once again, I think the term "software engineer" is a bastardization of the "engineer" term. Practically every engineering field out there required SOME knowledge of things such as Dynamics, Materials Science, Flows, etc...whether you're a Civil, a Mech, an EE...you ALL get this basic background because it's a common thread to the science of building things and working with materials (THAT's engineering...creating things from materials). I'm very annoyed that it somehow wormed its way into CS.
Ah! There's the problem! You're confused by the colloquial usage of "Software Engineer". Allow me to explain: When a large number of untrained "developers" hit the scene, it was decided that some form of term was needed to differentiate them from trained professionals. The term "software engineer" was batted around as a possibility. Unfortunately, it was widely misused and had a short life as a term for programmers.
What I am trying to do is define proper semantics for software development that meet the traditional usage in the science and engineering fields. Allow me to draw a few parallels for you:
Programmer/Hacker == Tinkerer - Tinkers with a machine until it does what they want it to do. Often good material for an engineer.
Software Developer == Construction Worker - A person who constructs machines professionally, according to the plans laid before them.
Software Engineer == Aerospace/Construction/Automobile/etc. Engineer - A person who designs or architects machines according to the needs of a user or group of users.
Computer Scientist == Physics/Math Scientist - A person who formulates theories about the nature of reality and attempts to prove those theories to advance the knowledge of mankind.
We're going to start calling architects "Floorplan engineers"? or musicians "Lyrical
What is really interesting is that back in the 1960's NASA had plans for an even bigger rocket than the Saturn V. I think it was called the Jupiter rocket or something like that. About 5x-10x the lift capacity of the Saturn V.
n _rocket.html)
I think you're a bit confused. "Jupiter" was the name of some ICBMs of the time. As a fast track to building one of the biggest rockets of all time, the engines from these ICBMs were clustered together into a single shell known as "Juno V". Believe it or not "Juno V" eventually took us to the moon! You see, Von Braun had suggested a name change after the Juno V diverged enough from the original rocket platform. The new name? Saturn V. (See: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Satur
The experiments were so successful that clustered rockets are still a common way to launch payloads. From the small Deltas, to the large Energias, they all provide more power and greater mission flexibility by offering a larger number of rocket engines instead of a few very large engines.
Here's what I know about Von Braun's future plans for space travel: Von Braun wanted to launch an Orion on the back of a Saturn V. This would allow the Saturn V to continue as a practical launch solution, and allow the Orion to become a practical form of interplanetary travel. (Actually, the Orion they would have launched would have been the least efficient design, but it still would have been a significant improvement over chemical rockets.) About that time, the government told NASA to shut down the Saturn V program and Von Braun left in disgust.
Now the Sea Dragon was a super-simple rocket that could have carried a massive tonnage (~550 metric tons) for about 1/4th the cost of the Saturn V. It was conceived of in 1962 as a study on how to make rocket launches cheaper. Again, by the time the study was taken seriously, the US was already winding down its production of large rockets. (The concept was later proven as the "Excalibur" rocket, but was largely ignored.)
Following the rise of the Regean era of space travel, NASA began research into using the Shuttle's engines as a massive booster. (The Shuttle's engines are currently some of the most powerful rockets in use today.) The result was the Shuttle C program; a pure cargo Shuttle.
With Clinton's Presidency, plans for space stations, moon bases, and Mars missions were all scaled back or put on hold. It wasn't until Clinton's term was up that NASA again began looking at ways of getting to Mars. Their current design is the Magnum launch vehicle which looks suspiciously like everything the Energia program was trying to accomplish.
With RISC one had less instructions, but each instruction executed in less clock cycles, resulting in a faster computer.
Technically, RISC chips were supposed to execute all instructions in ONE cycle. This simplified the chip architecture, allowing it to scale up much farther. The downside was that it put the onus on the compiler writer to produce efficient code. (MIPS is a perfect example of this architecture.) All he had to do was make sure that fewer instructions were executed per task, and the code would run faster.
That is, until the chip designers started introducing SuperScaler and Out of Order execution. You see, simplifying the chip design provided chip designers with a way to add new optimizations in how instructions were loaded and executed. Unfortunately, this again meant more work for the compiler writer. Now he not only had to optimize the number of instructions, but he also had to optimize the ordering so that multiple instructions could be executed simultaneously or out of order.
To the first to deliver an Infinite Improbability Drive.
Could someone calculate the improbability factor of someone making a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference on Slashdot? What's that? It has a very low improbability? Well then, I'm just going to hop on the Heart of Gold and turn on the improbability drive. Then I'd NEVER have to hear ANOTHER LAME REFERENCE to H2G2 AGAIN.
Wait a minute...
I'm totally onboard for NERVA, but keep in mind that NERVA wasn't done, per se, when the program folded. There were some significant problems relating to hydrogen eroding the graphite engine cores that still remained to be solved.
No argument here, but the project did produce real technology that works today. The graphite problem was not a show-stopper, and the Phoebes engine DID burn at maximum power for 10 minutes. That alone is sufficient power to send a rocket on a Mars bound trajectory. (Especially if multiple engines are used.) Not to mention that 40 years of material sciences should help cure that specific problem.
We *could* just wait around for Gas Core engines to reach maturity, but then we might be waiting a few decades. It's much better to use today's tech now, and let the knowledge gained through that use trickle into creating next-gen engines faster.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to fund a prototype of Zubrin's Nuclear Salt Water Rocket. 7,000-10,000 sec ISP! We'd be cruising the solar system like it was our back yard!
I think what would be great would be a (relatively) protest-proof method of transporting nuclear materials into space. There are always going to be leftists who oppose it on religious grounds, but if we can satisfy the reasonable people with objections, then the road to space will stretch out in front of us.
Interestingly enough, opposition to nuclear tech is waning. A recent study by Bisconti Research for the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 64% of respondents are in favor of nuclear power. That's a huge jump from 49% back in 1983. I think it's because a new generation has grown up without the fear of the Cold War, and the old timers are starting to forget what that was like. Without the fear of nuclear weapons, they have far fewer qualms about nuclear tech.
My guess is that Rutan's going to have to prove an orbital flyer before they actually take him seriously. Opponents will simply point out that the stresses and heat problems go up exponentially with speed. Since speed is what you need to achieve orbit (much more important than altitude), he'll have a hard time convincing the opponents.
What SpaceShipOne did do is prove that space travel is open to development by small companies. Once he claims the X-Prize, Rutan should have no trouble in finding investors for an orbital space-plane.
Didn't we have this talk over on NuclearSpace.com? I think we were discussing a Sea Wolf class shell.
Honestly, there's nothing all that hard about getting a big space craft up there. There's just the problem of convincing someone to do it. The US Government hasn't wanted big launches (think hundreds to thousands of metric tones) since the Apollo missions, and even went as far as to dismantle the Saturn V program. The Sea Dragon program showed that it could build a Sea Wold-like shell as a super cheap rocket, but no one was willing to exchange massive payload for the cost reductions. Thus the Sea Dragon didn't get the time of day.
And now Energia is sitting on a factory that could start producing the Energia Vulcan for the small cost of an 11 million dollar renovation, but the US wouldn't possibly even think of paying the Russians for a final anything. The Proton rocket only launches because Lockheed Martin (IIRC) bought it out.
Let's talk about this topic again when someone with money is serious about putting real tonnage into orbit.
Let's make a challange to transport humans to Mars by 2030, wouldn't that be fun?
It would be a complete gas! That is, as long as we use Nuclear Rockets. I *don't* want to have the travelers sitting around for a year and a half while they wait to get to their destination. A NERVA rocket (1960's tech!) could get the astronauts there faster and cheaper. If properly developed, it could even make Mars trips practical.
Personally, I'm thinking that NASA needs to be financially broken down by:
- Science (Deep Space Probes, etc.)
- Engineering (New *cough* propulsion methods)
- Vehicles and Launch Support
Congress would fund each of these individually, according to their needs. This way the long term projects (Remote Terrestrial Observation, or exploring Europa) would not be confused with shorter term projects (vehicle design) and Congress won't can the projects because "they're taking too much time and money".
In addition, Congress can then see a very real return on the money they spend. Invest in a new engine, see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a vehicle (must be based on existing components put out by the engineering department) and see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a science probe and see the results 10 years later (as the plan calls for).
I'd be modding you down right now for sheer stupidity if I still had the points. Nobody cares that you already posted it, so STFU.
And I'd be modding you down for not paying attention. The parent poster replied to *me* about something *I* had already said. Thus *his* post was redundant.
Now go troll somewhere else.
Ok, WTF is up with the Mods? It's not like the parent's point was out of line.
By the way, the phrase "high quality built in spell checker" is an example of an oxymoron (it's also an example of incorrect punctuation, but since it was written be someone who benefits from a spell checker, that shouldn't surprise anyone).
It *is* an example of bad punctuation (I was feeling too lazy to type "high-quality, built-in spell checker), but I fail to see how it's an oxymoron. Are you attempting to claim that no spell checker in existence is of high quality?
However, pure geekiness is best satisfied by his work in the Robots series, which he also linked to the Foundation series later.
I think it depends on how you define "geekiness". If you define "love Star Wars" as true "geekiness", then Asimov's ideas on Robots are truly insightful. If you define "geekiness" as "love of science and thought provoking literature", then Asimov's ideas on robotics are only mildly interesting. Many of his stories completely ignored the advances being made in electronics when they were written.
Rather, his works stood out for his ability to close many of his stories in a very ironic fashion. His short stories exemplify this point: A young girl who wants to read about schools with other kids instead of learning from her robot teacher; A universal computer that figures out how to reverse entropy just in time for the Universe to end, so it says "Let there be light!"
Very few authors had Asimov's sensibilities. Making him a part of "Star Wars" science fiction is a grave injustice to his abilities as an author, scientist, and philosopher.
Didn't I already make that point? And you have an extra 'e' in there, right after the second 's'.
I already made that point. Personally, I'm willing to forgive him. It *is* a complex word, and he *did* manage to use it in context. The later part is particularly impressive.
In case anyone thinks the parent is joking, allow me to assure you that he is quite serious. I've never actually read the book, but isn't that more of Heinlein's domain?