What I'd like to see would be a small nuclear generator
RTGs and SRGs are passive atomic devices that can easily put out a constant 75 to 1000 watts (depending on the design and amount of material). A nuclear *reactor* on the other hand, would add far too much weight to a rover, not to mention that it would provide far more power than is actually necessary. (That little rover doesn't need 10 MegaWatts[!] of electricity.)
NASA already uses RTGs on other probes, including many that have visited Mars. SRGs (Stirling Radioisotope Generators) haven't flown yet, but show promise for producing more power from less radioisotope.
Where a reactor would be useful is in engines for a manned mission. NERVA style engines can take off from the ground, and provide 2 to 3 times the thrust of chemical engines.
You'll certainly get no argument from me. I just wanted to point out what types of power I was actually referring to. It tends to be more difficult to convince people of reactor safety than it is of a more passive device like an RTG.
Its unlikely a nuclear engine will provide launch power from earth, but I can see one being put in space and then going from there.
Why not? As long as the reactors are sealed and secured against meltdown (which is actually pretty hard since you'll be *using* that heat), the hydrogen plasma should be no more dangerous than today's LH/LO rocket engines.
Errmm... Thanks for helping out. However, I should probably point out that I was referring to sending humans using NERVA engines, which use fission reactors to generate heat, which is in turn is used to change propellents into plasma. The plasma (being in a super-excited state) exits the craft at exceedingly high speeds, thus producing thrust. The test that were done before the project was shut down, showed a thrust of 2 to 3 times chemical rockets. Several designs have been proposed which could increase that rate even higher.
The part about Titanium-shelled still applies tho.:-)
Excellent. Thanks for the pointer. Sadly, the page seems to be pretty dumbed down for school kids, but most of the info is buried there. Of particular interest is the onboard power systems. The only power producer is the Solar Panels. I wonder if NASA has considered adding an SRG (more efficient than the RTGs of the 60's) to these rovers so that they have more power available to them? Such a power source would likely allow for missions that are far longer than today's 90 day mission. Battery degradation would still be a problem, but if the system was built to only use batteries when necessary, battery lifetime could be extended significantly.
The last thing we need is a probe to burn up and cause a nuclear explosion in the Martian atmosphere because someone forgot that they were supposed to use metric.
ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!! (Runs around waving hands in frustration.)
For one, nuclear systems in craft are designed to be survivable in uncontrolled reentry situations. NASA and the Russians have already dropped a few nuclear devices into the oceans after their craft exploded. They always recover them intact, and in some cases, actually reuse them.
Also, anyone who knows about nuclear technology knows how difficult it is to produce a nuclear explosion. Atomic bombs are specially designed to make the reaction go critical. BTW, did you know that Cherynobl continued to operate even after the disaster? People automatically assume it had the leveling power of a bomb, but in truth, radiation release and fallout (read: radioactive dust kicked into the air and soil) has been a far bigger issue.
We aren't going to Mars to take pretty pictures, you know
Well, actually we sort of are. Pretty pictures often contain details that are of great interest to science. They just aren't taking pretty pictures of anything except flat landscape. Yet, anyway.
If you want pictures of Martain mountain scenery, tell your government you want to send people there.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I also want them to reconsider nuclear powered craft such as NERVA. NERVA could make a trip to Mars relatively economical without exhausting dangerous radiation. Plus, a nuclear power plant on board could power much more advanced systems than we use in space today. For example, the actual flight computer could remain simple, but sensors, plotting equipment, habitat management, etc. could all be handled by more powerful computers.
Why is this flamebait? These pics really do make me itch to get to mars. And one of the biggest problems with getting there is propulsion technology. Nuclear propulsion such as NERVA would make a trip to mars much more economical. Unfortunately, it just ain't happening until we can get the "Nuclear Power is BAAADDD!!!!" people off our backs. On the bright side, public opinion of nuclear technology has been steadily increasing over the years. At this point 60% of the population is in favor of nuclear technology.
I realize that, but there are probably quite a few individuals out there who would like to know why parts are actually missing. Thus my explanation.:-)
Since the JPL website is impossible to navigate for any technical info, could you tell me what the range of this thing is? As I understand it, the landing site is several hundred miles from anywhere interesting (to us home-scientists that is). Traveling the distances at less than a mile per hour (with constant check-ins so that it doesn't fall over a cliff or something) could take the better part of a month.
No argument here. I just REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to see some cool extra-terrestrial pictures. These images are just making me itch all that more. Actually, those photos wouldn't satisfy me either. What I REALLY want, is to go there. Unfortunately, we have a few nuclear activists to get off our backs before we can do it cheaply.
Dude, you're looking at the files from the last rover. Scroll to the bottom and you'll find the file dates are correct. BTW, they're "modest" because NASA keeps the images in "small", "modest", and "original 300 meg for scientific research" sizes.
It looks to me to be damaged tiles. Most likely, NASA is sending the images in chunks of compressed data. Given the distances involved (and the processing power for images this large), they are probably slicing the images into squares and using those as the chunks of data to compress. When the data is received on our end, NASA reconstructs the images and throws away bad data that didn't make it.
It's possible that they'll have the lander retransmit the image at a later date. (Does anyone know the storage capacity of this thing?)
Don't get me wrong. Views from another planet are breathtaking in of themselves. But it would be nice if we use this experience to improve our future landing technologies so we can land these probes in places more interesting than a wide open plain. Mountains against the sky (for example) would make for some amazing photographs.
Sorry, I should probably be fair and point out the race of examples 1 and 2. Number 1 was a naturalized Indian. Number 2 was a "buff" white guy. We had more examples, but most were white or Indian. Surprisingly, I can't think of any completely incompetent Asians or Europeans. We did have a Ukrainian guy who was not a team player and made life hard for the rest of us, but at least he could code. Amusingly, we did find a very competent female Indian programmer. She tended to follow the flow a little too much, but she knew her stuff. Last I heard, she was going for her Masters.
I think you're highly confused. Of course there are programmers out there who both love computers and are looking for financial incentive. I should know, I'm one of them. But I also had an opportunity during the boom to see Silicon Valley first hand. To say that we acquired most of our useful technology staff while temporarily based in Chicago would be an understatement. Once we got to California, the quality of tech workers dropped like a rock. A few examples:
1. A guy who had multiple Masters degrees in programming and economics, was unable to code a single line. I spent a great deal of time trying to teach him, but he ended up trying to get me to do his work for him. He left just before he was about to be fired.
2. A guy who previously worked on Sun's website, came in at noon, left at three, spent most of his time in the gym, and only "pretended" to code. When we checked his work, we found he spent 3 weeks to make the wrong change to one line of code. He also left just before he was canned.
3. An Indian guy (sorry people) was hired without my knowledge, and showed up one day. The only project I think he got the time to work on, resulted in him stumbling on writing the debug statement "<% System.out.println(myvariable); %>". He kept asking how to do this time and time again, and I would tell him time and time again. My manager observed this, and the other manager who hired the guy fired him within a few days.
Get the picture?
If there are 150K tech workers in Bangalore, then there's a good chance that many of them are not much better. When you add the non-directional management aspect of outsourcing like this, one quickly realizes the poor quality of work that is most likely being done over there.
Ah corporate marketing what a fun world they must live in, to have the power to create truth from nothing more than pixie dust and fariy sneezes.
I hate to break it to you, but this stuff has been going on since statistics were invented. One of my favorite tricks is scaling a bar chart. By setting an appropriate "baseline", you can then scale the numbers until your "slight lead" becomes a massive lead. Or alternatively, you could scale it down so that it looks like you are only slightly behind when in reality, your product/performance/whatever sucks in comparison.
The later trick is particularly good if you are trying to upplay some other feature. e.g. "From this chart, you can see that our product is nearly neck-in-neck with the competition. However, our company provides you the product with more customizability than our competitor, allowing our product to better work for your business!" Translation? "Our product sucks, but you can buy it in fruity colors!"
That being said, I happen to like modern Macs (the old ones were POS), so bugger off.;-)
"WinTel Servers 10 times less expensive to operate than Linux Mainframe!" "Microsoft delivers 25% lower development and support costs!" "Window is 11-22% more cost effective!"
Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made up?
I think the OP was just more frustated than anything else.
Remember the saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?"
Now I'm as guilty as anyone for venting on occasion, but using explosive terms such as "racial" is exactly the wrong way to do it.
Another point, is that the OP fell into the trap of, "if the parent didn't explicitly make a statement, he must not believe it to be true." In this particular case, the statement that the parent failed to make was, "There are good Indian programmers." Thus the OP set out to correct him on a point the parent never addressed. While I normally would have been fine with that (it often encourages discussion), his apparent need to vent, devalued his entire contribution. Had he simply vented with no other comment, no harm would have been done. Had he stated his opinion without venting, no harm would have been done. He did neither and that has caused irreparable harm to the discussion.
What do you want to use coding for? If you simply wish to have a career in coding, than a masters (even if you don't need it) will help you get that interview. If you set your sights at a slightly different goal (i.e. attempting to change the world through new ideas and coding practices) you may be able to make a name for yourself in the industry. So far, the later tack has paid off for me, and has unlimited potential for growth. But that's probably because I don't want to go where the former tack leads: business management.
Both tacks have the opportunity for earning large amounts of money. The actual choice in a path for your life very much depends on how you want to spend it and who you want your peers to be. Neither is actually "better" than the other, but they will require very different goals and self-development. Since I always learned on my own faster than in a classroom, my choice was obvious. For others, they may wish to use a degree (as I said before) to temper themselves like a good sword. It can be very effective, but isn't a requirement for this industry.:-)
I suspect most of the derogatory comments on there skills are chauvanistic or plain racist in origon.
Dude, you were doing so well right up to that last line. Had you left it off, you probably would have gotten a +5 Insightful. But your apparent need to bury your opponent under a minefield of political correctness may get you a -1 Troll. And rightfully so. No intelligent argument should ever contain such blatant insults unless the speaker is willing to provide evidence of the alleged crime.
I know that this tack has become exceedingly popular, but it has the effect of killing the very progress you profess to desire. Not to mention that it is very cruel to the supposed victims, as they are never given the opportunity to show their capabilities instead of being coddled as if they were wounded in the crossfire.
In short, save the insults for those who deserve them.
The truth is that an education does not make you what you are educated in. In my experience, having a degree has very little to do with being a good programmer. Good programmers have a drive that pushes them to master their trade. "Pretend" programmers may learn the concepts behind programming, and even understand how to make code work. However, they lack a true understanding of what the code is doing and why. They have no concept that the data structures and OS design courses they took, have a real purpose and are not just background.
For the record, I do not have a CS degree myself. It worked out that obtaining actual experience in the field got in the way of getting a degree. I started with a very high opinion of those who had CS degrees, but as I gained real-world experience, I learned that a CS degree really doesn't mean much. In the hands of someone who has coding in their blood, it tempers them like a good sword. In the hands of a "wannabe", it is as useless as a fifth wheel.
What's really interesting though, is that programmers who wish to become true masters, will not let the lack of a degree stand in their way. While not all of them have the opportunity like myself to read college level texts as children, those that don't will seek out these materials as soon as they feel a need. And in the end, you can hold an amazingly coherent technical conversation with degreed and non-degreed coders. The only ones who feel left out are the ones who saw their degrees as a way to make money.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but what about those nucular activists?
I don't know. They can't spell maybe?
What I'd like to see would be a small nuclear generator
RTGs and SRGs are passive atomic devices that can easily put out a constant 75 to 1000 watts (depending on the design and amount of material). A nuclear *reactor* on the other hand, would add far too much weight to a rover, not to mention that it would provide far more power than is actually necessary. (That little rover doesn't need 10 MegaWatts[!] of electricity.)
NASA already uses RTGs on other probes, including many that have visited Mars. SRGs (Stirling Radioisotope Generators) haven't flown yet, but show promise for producing more power from less radioisotope.
Where a reactor would be useful is in engines for a manned mission. NERVA style engines can take off from the ground, and provide 2 to 3 times the thrust of chemical engines.
You'll certainly get no argument from me. I just wanted to point out what types of power I was actually referring to. It tends to be more difficult to convince people of reactor safety than it is of a more passive device like an RTG.
Its unlikely a nuclear engine will provide launch power from earth, but I can see one being put in space and then going from there.
Why not? As long as the reactors are sealed and secured against meltdown (which is actually pretty hard since you'll be *using* that heat), the hydrogen plasma should be no more dangerous than today's LH/LO rocket engines.
Did you know it's an AD CAMPAIGN? What did you expect?
Did you know that I was expecting a +5 funny, but got a +5 Interesting instead? Apparently, almost no one got the joke.
Errmm... Thanks for helping out. However, I should probably point out that I was referring to sending humans using NERVA engines, which use fission reactors to generate heat, which is in turn is used to change propellents into plasma. The plasma (being in a super-excited state) exits the craft at exceedingly high speeds, thus producing thrust. The test that were done before the project was shut down, showed a thrust of 2 to 3 times chemical rockets. Several designs have been proposed which could increase that rate even higher.
:-)
The part about Titanium-shelled still applies tho.
Excellent. Thanks for the pointer. Sadly, the page seems to be pretty dumbed down for school kids, but most of the info is buried there. Of particular interest is the onboard power systems. The only power producer is the Solar Panels. I wonder if NASA has considered adding an SRG (more efficient than the RTGs of the 60's) to these rovers so that they have more power available to them? Such a power source would likely allow for missions that are far longer than today's 90 day mission. Battery degradation would still be a problem, but if the system was built to only use batteries when necessary, battery lifetime could be extended significantly.
The last thing we need is a probe to burn up and cause a nuclear explosion in the Martian atmosphere because someone forgot that they were supposed to use metric.
ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!! (Runs around waving hands in frustration.)
For one, nuclear systems in craft are designed to be survivable in uncontrolled reentry situations. NASA and the Russians have already dropped a few nuclear devices into the oceans after their craft exploded. They always recover them intact, and in some cases, actually reuse them.
Also, anyone who knows about nuclear technology knows how difficult it is to produce a nuclear explosion. Atomic bombs are specially designed to make the reaction go critical. BTW, did you know that Cherynobl continued to operate even after the disaster? People automatically assume it had the leveling power of a bomb, but in truth, radiation release and fallout (read: radioactive dust kicked into the air and soil) has been a far bigger issue.
We aren't going to Mars to take pretty pictures, you know
Well, actually we sort of are. Pretty pictures often contain details that are of great interest to science. They just aren't taking pretty pictures of anything except flat landscape. Yet, anyway.
If you want pictures of Martain mountain scenery, tell your government you want to send people there.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I also want them to reconsider nuclear powered craft such as NERVA. NERVA could make a trip to Mars relatively economical without exhausting dangerous radiation. Plus, a nuclear power plant on board could power much more advanced systems than we use in space today. For example, the actual flight computer could remain simple, but sensors, plotting equipment, habitat management, etc. could all be handled by more powerful computers.
Why is this flamebait? These pics really do make me itch to get to mars. And one of the biggest problems with getting there is propulsion technology. Nuclear propulsion such as NERVA would make a trip to mars much more economical. Unfortunately, it just ain't happening until we can get the "Nuclear Power is BAAADDD!!!!" people off our backs. On the bright side, public opinion of nuclear technology has been steadily increasing over the years. At this point 60% of the population is in favor of nuclear technology.
I realize that, but there are probably quite a few individuals out there who would like to know why parts are actually missing. Thus my explanation. :-)
Since the JPL website is impossible to navigate for any technical info, could you tell me what the range of this thing is? As I understand it, the landing site is several hundred miles from anywhere interesting (to us home-scientists that is). Traveling the distances at less than a mile per hour (with constant check-ins so that it doesn't fall over a cliff or something) could take the better part of a month.
No argument here. I just REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to see some cool extra-terrestrial pictures. These images are just making me itch all that more. Actually, those photos wouldn't satisfy me either. What I REALLY want, is to go there. Unfortunately, we have a few nuclear activists to get off our backs before we can do it cheaply.
Dude, you're looking at the files from the last rover. Scroll to the bottom and you'll find the file dates are correct. BTW, they're "modest" because NASA keeps the images in "small", "modest", and "original 300 meg for scientific research" sizes.
It looks to me to be damaged tiles. Most likely, NASA is sending the images in chunks of compressed data. Given the distances involved (and the processing power for images this large), they are probably slicing the images into squares and using those as the chunks of data to compress. When the data is received on our end, NASA reconstructs the images and throws away bad data that didn't make it.
It's possible that they'll have the lander retransmit the image at a later date. (Does anyone know the storage capacity of this thing?)
Don't get me wrong. Views from another planet are breathtaking in of themselves. But it would be nice if we use this experience to improve our future landing technologies so we can land these probes in places more interesting than a wide open plain. Mountains against the sky (for example) would make for some amazing photographs.
Sorry, I should probably be fair and point out the race of examples 1 and 2. Number 1 was a naturalized Indian. Number 2 was a "buff" white guy. We had more examples, but most were white or Indian. Surprisingly, I can't think of any completely incompetent Asians or Europeans. We did have a Ukrainian guy who was not a team player and made life hard for the rest of us, but at least he could code. Amusingly, we did find a very competent female Indian programmer. She tended to follow the flow a little too much, but she knew her stuff. Last I heard, she was going for her Masters.
I think you're highly confused. Of course there are programmers out there who both love computers and are looking for financial incentive. I should know, I'm one of them. But I also had an opportunity during the boom to see Silicon Valley first hand. To say that we acquired most of our useful technology staff while temporarily based in Chicago would be an understatement. Once we got to California, the quality of tech workers dropped like a rock. A few examples:
1. A guy who had multiple Masters degrees in programming and economics, was unable to code a single line. I spent a great deal of time trying to teach him, but he ended up trying to get me to do his work for him. He left just before he was about to be fired.
2. A guy who previously worked on Sun's website, came in at noon, left at three, spent most of his time in the gym, and only "pretended" to code. When we checked his work, we found he spent 3 weeks to make the wrong change to one line of code. He also left just before he was canned.
3. An Indian guy (sorry people) was hired without my knowledge, and showed up one day. The only project I think he got the time to work on, resulted in him stumbling on writing the debug statement "<% System.out.println(myvariable); %>". He kept asking how to do this time and time again, and I would tell him time and time again. My manager observed this, and the other manager who hired the guy fired him within a few days.
Get the picture?
If there are 150K tech workers in Bangalore, then there's a good chance that many of them are not much better. When you add the non-directional management aspect of outsourcing like this, one quickly realizes the poor quality of work that is most likely being done over there.
Ah corporate marketing what a fun world they must live in, to have the power to create truth from nothing more than pixie dust and fariy sneezes.
;-)
I hate to break it to you, but this stuff has been going on since statistics were invented. One of my favorite tricks is scaling a bar chart. By setting an appropriate "baseline", you can then scale the numbers until your "slight lead" becomes a massive lead. Or alternatively, you could scale it down so that it looks like you are only slightly behind when in reality, your product/performance/whatever sucks in comparison.
The later trick is particularly good if you are trying to upplay some other feature. e.g. "From this chart, you can see that our product is nearly neck-in-neck with the competition. However, our company provides you the product with more customizability than our competitor, allowing our product to better work for your business!" Translation? "Our product sucks, but you can buy it in fruity colors!"
That being said, I happen to like modern Macs (the old ones were POS), so bugger off.
I will have you know that I did *not* lie. I merely... (waves hands around) stretched the truth a bit. ;-)
You are 100% homosexual.
Well, it's a good thing that's a made up statistic then. My wife might have had an issue with that.
(Note for mods. If you're browsing at +1, click on the "Parent" link to put this post in context.)
"WinTel Servers 10 times less expensive to operate than Linux Mainframe!"
"Microsoft delivers 25% lower development and support costs!"
"Window is 11-22% more cost effective!"
Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made up?
I think the OP was just more frustated than anything else.
Remember the saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?"
Now I'm as guilty as anyone for venting on occasion, but using explosive terms such as "racial" is exactly the wrong way to do it.
Another point, is that the OP fell into the trap of, "if the parent didn't explicitly make a statement, he must not believe it to be true." In this particular case, the statement that the parent failed to make was, "There are good Indian programmers." Thus the OP set out to correct him on a point the parent never addressed. While I normally would have been fine with that (it often encourages discussion), his apparent need to vent, devalued his entire contribution. Had he simply vented with no other comment, no harm would have been done. Had he stated his opinion without venting, no harm would have been done. He did neither and that has caused irreparable harm to the discussion.
What do you want to use coding for? If you simply wish to have a career in coding, than a masters (even if you don't need it) will help you get that interview. If you set your sights at a slightly different goal (i.e. attempting to change the world through new ideas and coding practices) you may be able to make a name for yourself in the industry. So far, the later tack has paid off for me, and has unlimited potential for growth. But that's probably because I don't want to go where the former tack leads: business management.
:-)
Both tacks have the opportunity for earning large amounts of money. The actual choice in a path for your life very much depends on how you want to spend it and who you want your peers to be. Neither is actually "better" than the other, but they will require very different goals and self-development. Since I always learned on my own faster than in a classroom, my choice was obvious. For others, they may wish to use a degree (as I said before) to temper themselves like a good sword. It can be very effective, but isn't a requirement for this industry.
I suspect most of the derogatory comments on there skills are chauvanistic or plain racist in origon.
Dude, you were doing so well right up to that last line. Had you left it off, you probably would have gotten a +5 Insightful. But your apparent need to bury your opponent under a minefield of political correctness may get you a -1 Troll. And rightfully so. No intelligent argument should ever contain such blatant insults unless the speaker is willing to provide evidence of the alleged crime.
I know that this tack has become exceedingly popular, but it has the effect of killing the very progress you profess to desire. Not to mention that it is very cruel to the supposed victims, as they are never given the opportunity to show their capabilities instead of being coddled as if they were wounded in the crossfire.
In short, save the insults for those who deserve them.
The truth is that an education does not make you what you are educated in. In my experience, having a degree has very little to do with being a good programmer. Good programmers have a drive that pushes them to master their trade. "Pretend" programmers may learn the concepts behind programming, and even understand how to make code work. However, they lack a true understanding of what the code is doing and why. They have no concept that the data structures and OS design courses they took, have a real purpose and are not just background.
For the record, I do not have a CS degree myself. It worked out that obtaining actual experience in the field got in the way of getting a degree. I started with a very high opinion of those who had CS degrees, but as I gained real-world experience, I learned that a CS degree really doesn't mean much. In the hands of someone who has coding in their blood, it tempers them like a good sword. In the hands of a "wannabe", it is as useless as a fifth wheel.
What's really interesting though, is that programmers who wish to become true masters, will not let the lack of a degree stand in their way. While not all of them have the opportunity like myself to read college level texts as children, those that don't will seek out these materials as soon as they feel a need. And in the end, you can hold an amazingly coherent technical conversation with degreed and non-degreed coders. The only ones who feel left out are the ones who saw their degrees as a way to make money.