Shoot down? with what? There is a short list of nations with firepower that can make it that high in the atmosphere.
The list is longer than you think. Most air-to-air missiles can reach that height, and the supersonic flight ceiling of modern jet planes (including MiGs) is classified information. A blimp like this would probably need some air cover to operate inside a war zone. (Not that air cover is a problem when you've got over a dozen carriers with the capability of delivering planes anywhere in the world.)
I remember a documentary on the Discovery channel where they were discussing how a pilot accidently shot down a LEO satellite with a missile. The realization that missiles could reach that height lead to the creation of the Pegasus launch solution.
Hey! I'll have you know, that stuff is good brainfood! While you're digesting that, go visit WikiPedia and type in "Spacecraft Propulsion". Ah, what I wouldn't give for a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket (NSWR)!;-)
The only thing that's getting missed around here is my point. The very nature of Rutan's tests are showier than tests done to a more conventional rocket. That is my point.
Just looking at the fact that Rutan is flying and Armadillo is not, might lead one to conclude that Rutan is far closer to completion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two are about evenly matched right now. The actual winner is going to be hard to predict.
BTW, I can't help but poke at your nick (considering the subject). The Vulkan Energia configuration is way cooler than the Buran Energia configuration! Everyone knows that!
If you asked me a month ago, I would have said Rutan has it. With all the understanding I've gained of rockets in the past month or so, I'd say its a toss up. Each design presents its own design challenges. Rutan can make test flights because of his decision to use a winged craft. OTOH, Carmack is already getting far more power out of his engines. We'll see which one takes the cake.
My point is not that these aren't necessary tests. But Rutan's tests are obviously much more showy than Armadillo's. This leads people to the impression that Rutan is very near to achieving the X-Prize. The truth of the matter is that they are both in similar stages of development, albeit with different designs.
I wouldn't worry too much. Rutan seems to be putting on a show more than actually at a "space capable" stage. IIRC, the X-Prize requires that the craft reach 100KM. Rutan's craft has only reached ~14Km, about where a 747 flies. Actual LEO is really 200km - 1500km.
FWIW, it looks like Carmack is taking the time to understand his engines before shooting them off and hoping they fly. This is particularly important since his Monoprop fuel has an Isp of a mere 160. (Shuttle SRBs get 250, and LHOx like the Shuttle main engines get 450.)
Unix WAS originally made for playing games (or more specifically, some kind of space game I think).
You're probably thinking of SpaceWar which was played on a PDP-1. I hate to break it to you, but that predated Unix (and most actual "OSes" as we think of them today) by about 8 years. To my knowledge, Unix was never used for games. (At least until *after* video games became common.)
Hardware abstraction layers, such as OpenGL (and less game-specific ones), are good things.
Final round. For the prize, answer this question: Is OpenGL an API for accessing low level hardware?
*tick* *tick* *tick*
If you said "Yes", then you win!!!
OpenGL is nothing but an interface to a 3D video card. It doesn't require any complex OS to function. It's simply OpenGL API -> GPU. There is zero need for a full, "modern" OS to manage these APIs in DLLs, handle threading, provide a GUI, run programs, etc. In fact, the kernel and system APIs can be statically linked against your code to create a single binary that can boot the system. Only Microsoft thinks that game consoles need a complete OS.
1. An OS is a kernel. APIs are a programming feature that most OSes use to provide easy access to OS features. As an example, DOS was notably lacking any form of APIs. 2. You're splitting hairs. I stated that only the most minimal OS is necessary. Having device APIs to access low level hardware (e.g. OpenGL, OpenAL, etc.) is the most important part of game programming.
Apparently you haven't heard about DirectX or OpenGL, eh?
Let me think, are those part of the Kernel or are they APIs to access low level hardware functionality. Thinking...
Whatchew talkin bout? Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) is a "business oriented" OS; Linux has no orientation at all.
Unix is not oriented for gaming. It was built as a way of making computer interaction and research easier. Windows isn't game oriented either, but they've managed a few hacks around that problem.
Exactly! Which is why Linux might (in a few years, if all goes well) be a better platform for PC gaming than Microsoft(tm) Windows!
How about the "OS" that game consoles already have?
ack when there were only 4 video cards and 3 soundcards, it was painful but possible. Today that the complexity of the hardware has multiplied, it's no longer an option.
MSDOS sucked primarily because there was no driver framework. A game system does have APIs to access low level hardware.
...did I miss the point here somewhere? Just about everything I know about gaming says that the more the OS stays out of the way, the better. Now they want to replace our thin OS-like layers with a complete business/research oriented OS. Why?
Seriously, the OS doesn't *do* anything for a game. All a game really needs is a collection of APIs to transparently access low-level hardware. Threading is nice, but "green" thread libraries can be used in its stead. That's much the reason why MSDOS (save for the 640K barrier) was such a great gaming platform. The OS literally did nothing. It got the frick out of the way, and stayed there.
Hi Taco, how's it hanging? Can't say this OpenBoot troll of yours is all that effective. I tend to get a lot of responses when I mention OpenFirmware, but most of the responses I get are highly intelligent. It seems that people who've heard of OpenFirmware are smart enough not to encourage trolling.
Try for a Nuclear Space troll. If you do your research ahead of time, you can get people going *and* hopefully educate them along the way.
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Patience young one. This is a Wall Street Journal article, not a computer focused article. This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending. Ever since Microsoft released XP with these new tighter contracts, businesses who hadn't previously cared about alternatives now care. We've already seen some Microsoft replacing going on, this article is probably a harbinger of more.
Then please give your wife my sincerest condolences. Tell her that there are help centers for women in abusive relationships, and that emotional and verbal abuse is just as bad as physical abuse.
I mean really, stuff a sock in it. You're not baiting anyone. You should get out a little more, find a girlfriend. Maybe settle down and have a few rugrats. Trust me, rugrats are far more interesting than trolling on Slashdot. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll find out what being happy is all about.
The power of wackos comes entirely from how many people they can get to believe their lines of horse shit. If they can't come up with an even half-way plausable excuse to worry about moon launches, then they'll have a hard time exerting political pressure. Most of the Cassini pressure was from the off chance that the rocket might explode and rain down death and destruction. (Never mind that the RTG is practically indestructable, or that Plutonium is an Alpha emitter and wouldn't hurt a fly.)
I'm sure they'll try something truly stupid, like the moon may fall out of its orbit. However, the more outlandish their excuse, the fewer people who will buy it.
BTW, here's a site on Orion with a cool little animation showing how it will work. The site also links to excerpts from George Dyson's (son of Freeman Dyson) book on his father's work.
I highly suggest starting with wikipedia's information on propulsion. It should give you enough knowledge to plug into Google. After that, visit my topic on the Nuclear Space message board to find out why heavy lifters aren't a big deal.
I started with the, "we can barely get to LEO" idea as well. Turns out we can put as much tonnage into LEO as we want. Once LEO is achieved, that acts as the staging point for more advanced engine designs.
I've heard of bomb-rates in the 60/sec, which clearly doesn't square with the descriptions of intermittent back-slamming in Lucifer's Hammer, but even a good strong 60Hz buzz in the butt would get tiring, fast. (How well can it really be absorbed?)
If you're referring to "Footfall", I haven't had the chance to read it. You would not be getting a 60hz buzz however. You have to remember that the pusher plate moves so that the acceleration to the rest of the craft is gradual. Thus you'd feel just a constant push. M2P2 Orions would be similar. The M2P2 field "gives" a bit, and basically would accelerate the craft as if it were inside a water balloon.
I think the point would be to build most of the components on the moon. That way, you wouldn't have to ship anything.
As for Orion, the big problem I see is that the EMP effect is going to propagate for thousands of miles. IIRC, cold war calculations showed that one multi-megaton nuke in low orbit could wipe out most of N. America in one hit.
Thus the need to launch from *high* orbit.:-) Besides, you've got the perfect shield up there. Launch from behind the moon, and you'll have no difficulties.
One argument I should probably bring up, is that Orion charges are not the same as weapons grade warheads. A lot of research went into shaping the nuclear charge so that most of the energy was directed toward the pusher plate (or toward the M2P2 field in recent designs). Many have argued that the EMP from such a blast would be negligible.
Personally, I think that a combination of M2P2 and ion drive driven by a nuclear reactor is the best bet for travel inside the solar system. IIRC, M2P2 gets an ISP of something like 60,000.
*cough*thrust*cough*
You're missing thrust. It's great if you have an Isp of 60,000, but without the necessary thrust, your humans are going to be rubbery, radioactive toast by the time they get anywhere. If we wanted to get somewhere slow, we can already do it with existing chemical rockets. (Although Ion drives have far more powered range.) The whole point of using nuclear drives is to get somewhere fast, but with energy to spare. NERVA and GCNR systems could easily take us to Mars in a reasonable amount of time. NSWR and Orion drives can take us just about anywhere in the solar system in a reasonable amount of time. Depending on the configuration, they can even do it with gravity!
Orion's a great way to get to Alpha Centauri but I think it's best to sit on that particular drive tech until we're ready to tackle interstellar travel.
Ummm... no. A self-propelled Orion couldn't reach Alpha Centauri inside a lifetime. There are only two viable proposals I've seen for that:
1. A "railway" Orion. Pulse charges are launched (probably via mass driver) from a renewable source (such as an asteroid) along the path of the Orion to intercept the Orion at the appropriate time. This way, the Orion can be under constant thrust the entire way.
2. Build a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket with 90% rich solution. Given large enough tanks, it should be able to achieve abour.03c.
Both of these proposals would mean trips anywhere from 20-60 years. If you wish to talk about generational ships, then an 8 million ton Orion may be a valid choice. Otherwise, we need a better space infrastructure before we start talking about interstellar trips.
It's all a matter of perspective. Shipping "ores" to the moon is less scary to most people than shipping working nuclear devices. Especially if you're launching nuclear engines, which people will fear will pollute Earth. Just launch them from the far side of the moon, and people won't be able to complain.
Slashdot Mirror
Shoot down? with what? There is a short list of nations with firepower that can make it that high in the atmosphere.
The list is longer than you think. Most air-to-air missiles can reach that height, and the supersonic flight ceiling of modern jet planes (including MiGs) is classified information. A blimp like this would probably need some air cover to operate inside a war zone. (Not that air cover is a problem when you've got over a dozen carriers with the capability of delivering planes anywhere in the world.)
I remember a documentary on the Discovery channel where they were discussing how a pilot accidently shot down a LEO satellite with a missile. The realization that missiles could reach that height lead to the creation of the Pegasus launch solution.
Oh, poppycock. I know a perfect example of a Linux app targeted at end users. After all, what end user doesn't run a database, hmmm?
Hey! I'll have you know, that stuff is good brainfood! While you're digesting that, go visit WikiPedia and type in "Spacecraft Propulsion". Ah, what I wouldn't give for a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket (NSWR)! ;-)
Too late. Already seen it, digested it, and passed it around. I must say, the guy does keep a nice looking site. :-)
The only thing that's getting missed around here is my point. The very nature of Rutan's tests are showier than tests done to a more conventional rocket. That is my point.
Just looking at the fact that Rutan is flying and Armadillo is not, might lead one to conclude that Rutan is far closer to completion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two are about evenly matched right now. The actual winner is going to be hard to predict.
Well, I'm glad you agree with me then. :-)
BTW, I can't help but poke at your nick (considering the subject). The Vulkan Energia configuration is way cooler than the Buran Energia configuration! Everyone knows that!
My apologies. He's made it ~20km, giving a net powered flight of 6km. That leaves him about 80km to go. Hope he packed some extra fuel.
If you asked me a month ago, I would have said Rutan has it. With all the understanding I've gained of rockets in the past month or so, I'd say its a toss up. Each design presents its own design challenges. Rutan can make test flights because of his decision to use a winged craft. OTOH, Carmack is already getting far more power out of his engines. We'll see which one takes the cake.
My point is not that these aren't necessary tests. But Rutan's tests are obviously much more showy than Armadillo's. This leads people to the impression that Rutan is very near to achieving the X-Prize. The truth of the matter is that they are both in similar stages of development, albeit with different designs.
I wouldn't worry too much. Rutan seems to be putting on a show more than actually at a "space capable" stage. IIRC, the X-Prize requires that the craft reach 100KM. Rutan's craft has only reached ~14Km, about where a 747 flies. Actual LEO is really 200km - 1500km.
FWIW, it looks like Carmack is taking the time to understand his engines before shooting them off and hoping they fly. This is particularly important since his Monoprop fuel has an Isp of a mere 160. (Shuttle SRBs get 250, and LHOx like the Shuttle main engines get 450.)
Unix WAS originally made for playing games (or more specifically, some kind of space game I think).
You're probably thinking of SpaceWar which was played on a PDP-1. I hate to break it to you, but that predated Unix (and most actual "OSes" as we think of them today) by about 8 years. To my knowledge, Unix was never used for games. (At least until *after* video games became common.)
Here's the story behind SpaceWar.
Hardware abstraction layers, such as OpenGL (and less game-specific ones), are good things.
Final round. For the prize, answer this question: Is OpenGL an API for accessing low level hardware?
*tick*
*tick*
*tick*
If you said "Yes", then you win!!!
OpenGL is nothing but an interface to a 3D video card. It doesn't require any complex OS to function. It's simply OpenGL API -> GPU. There is zero need for a full, "modern" OS to manage these APIs in DLLs, handle threading, provide a GUI, run programs, etc. In fact, the kernel and system APIs can be statically linked against your code to create a single binary that can boot the system. Only Microsoft thinks that game consoles need a complete OS.
1. An OS is a kernel. APIs are a programming feature that most OSes use to provide easy access to OS features. As an example, DOS was notably lacking any form of APIs.
2. You're splitting hairs. I stated that only the most minimal OS is necessary. Having device APIs to access low level hardware (e.g. OpenGL, OpenAL, etc.) is the most important part of game programming.
Apparently you haven't heard about DirectX or OpenGL, eh?
Let me think, are those part of the Kernel or are they APIs to access low level hardware functionality. Thinking...
Whatchew talkin bout? Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) is a "business oriented" OS; Linux has no orientation at all.
Unix is not oriented for gaming. It was built as a way of making computer interaction and research easier. Windows isn't game oriented either, but they've managed a few hacks around that problem.
Exactly! Which is why Linux might (in a few years, if all goes well) be a better platform for PC gaming than Microsoft(tm) Windows!
How about the "OS" that game consoles already have?
ack when there were only 4 video cards and 3 soundcards, it was painful but possible. Today that the complexity of the hardware has multiplied, it's no longer an option.
MSDOS sucked primarily because there was no driver framework. A game system does have APIs to access low level hardware.
...did I miss the point here somewhere? Just about everything I know about gaming says that the more the OS stays out of the way, the better. Now they want to replace our thin OS-like layers with a complete business/research oriented OS. Why?
Seriously, the OS doesn't *do* anything for a game. All a game really needs is a collection of APIs to transparently access low-level hardware. Threading is nice, but "green" thread libraries can be used in its stead. That's much the reason why MSDOS (save for the 640K barrier) was such a great gaming platform. The OS literally did nothing. It got the frick out of the way, and stayed there.
Hi Taco, how's it hanging? Can't say this OpenBoot troll of yours is all that effective. I tend to get a lot of responses when I mention OpenFirmware, but most of the responses I get are highly intelligent. It seems that people who've heard of OpenFirmware are smart enough not to encourage trolling.
Try for a Nuclear Space troll. If you do your research ahead of time, you can get people going *and* hopefully educate them along the way.
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Patience young one. This is a Wall Street Journal article, not a computer focused article. This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending. Ever since Microsoft released XP with these new tighter contracts, businesses who hadn't previously cared about alternatives now care. We've already seen some Microsoft replacing going on, this article is probably a harbinger of more.
Say it with me: OpenFirmware
The fact that PC makers keep reinventing the wheel is annoying.
Then please give your wife my sincerest condolences. Tell her that there are help centers for women in abusive relationships, and that emotional and verbal abuse is just as bad as physical abuse.
Good day to you, sir.
> And so it is that we meet once more.
You killed my brother. Prepare to die!
I mean really, stuff a sock in it. You're not baiting anyone. You should get out a little more, find a girlfriend. Maybe settle down and have a few rugrats. Trust me, rugrats are far more interesting than trolling on Slashdot. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll find out what being happy is all about.
The power of wackos comes entirely from how many people they can get to believe their lines of horse shit. If they can't come up with an even half-way plausable excuse to worry about moon launches, then they'll have a hard time exerting political pressure. Most of the Cassini pressure was from the off chance that the rocket might explode and rain down death and destruction. (Never mind that the RTG is practically indestructable, or that Plutonium is an Alpha emitter and wouldn't hurt a fly.)
I'm sure they'll try something truly stupid, like the moon may fall out of its orbit. However, the more outlandish their excuse, the fewer people who will buy it.
BTW, here's a site on Orion with a cool little animation showing how it will work. The site also links to excerpts from George Dyson's (son of Freeman Dyson) book on his father's work.
I highly suggest starting with wikipedia's information on propulsion. It should give you enough knowledge to plug into Google. After that, visit my topic on the Nuclear Space message board to find out why heavy lifters aren't a big deal.
I started with the, "we can barely get to LEO" idea as well. Turns out we can put as much tonnage into LEO as we want. Once LEO is achieved, that acts as the staging point for more advanced engine designs.
I've heard of bomb-rates in the 60/sec, which clearly doesn't square with the descriptions of intermittent back-slamming in Lucifer's Hammer, but even a good strong 60Hz buzz in the butt would get tiring, fast. (How well can it really be absorbed?)
If you're referring to "Footfall", I haven't had the chance to read it. You would not be getting a 60hz buzz however. You have to remember that the pusher plate moves so that the acceleration to the rest of the craft is gradual. Thus you'd feel just a constant push. M2P2 Orions would be similar. The M2P2 field "gives" a bit, and basically would accelerate the craft as if it were inside a water balloon.
I think the point would be to build most of the components on the moon. That way, you wouldn't have to ship anything.
:-) Besides, you've got the perfect shield up there. Launch from behind the moon, and you'll have no difficulties.
.03c.
As for Orion, the big problem I see is that the EMP effect is going to propagate for thousands of miles. IIRC, cold war calculations showed that one multi-megaton nuke in low orbit could wipe out most of N. America in one hit.
Thus the need to launch from *high* orbit.
One argument I should probably bring up, is that Orion charges are not the same as weapons grade warheads. A lot of research went into shaping the nuclear charge so that most of the energy was directed toward the pusher plate (or toward the M2P2 field in recent designs). Many have argued that the EMP from such a blast would be negligible.
Personally, I think that a combination of M2P2 and ion drive driven by a nuclear reactor is the best bet for travel inside the solar system. IIRC, M2P2 gets an ISP of something like 60,000.
*cough*thrust*cough*
You're missing thrust. It's great if you have an Isp of 60,000, but without the necessary thrust, your humans are going to be rubbery, radioactive toast by the time they get anywhere. If we wanted to get somewhere slow, we can already do it with existing chemical rockets. (Although Ion drives have far more powered range.) The whole point of using nuclear drives is to get somewhere fast, but with energy to spare. NERVA and GCNR systems could easily take us to Mars in a reasonable amount of time. NSWR and Orion drives can take us just about anywhere in the solar system in a reasonable amount of time. Depending on the configuration, they can even do it with gravity!
Orion's a great way to get to Alpha Centauri but I think it's best to sit on that particular drive tech until we're ready to tackle interstellar travel.
Ummm... no. A self-propelled Orion couldn't reach Alpha Centauri inside a lifetime. There are only two viable proposals I've seen for that:
1. A "railway" Orion. Pulse charges are launched (probably via mass driver) from a renewable source (such as an asteroid) along the path of the Orion to intercept the Orion at the appropriate time. This way, the Orion can be under constant thrust the entire way.
2. Build a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket with 90% rich solution. Given large enough tanks, it should be able to achieve abour
Both of these proposals would mean trips anywhere from 20-60 years. If you wish to talk about generational ships, then an 8 million ton Orion may be a valid choice. Otherwise, we need a better space infrastructure before we start talking about interstellar trips.
It's all a matter of perspective. Shipping "ores" to the moon is less scary to most people than shipping working nuclear devices. Especially if you're launching nuclear engines, which people will fear will pollute Earth. Just launch them from the far side of the moon, and people won't be able to complain.