Clancy got part of it. The base isotopes from known factories are cataloged and since we have access to Russia and a few other countries, we can see if this came from one of them.
But.. If someone has enriched their own materials, the catalog will not show that up. But, there is a lot than can be determined from a detailed analysis of the fissionable material. For instance, an uneven isotope composition throught the material could indicate a compilation of source materials, or maybe the used a centrifuge for the enrichment and the materials show the material crosssection. From that, you should theoretically be able to determine the base characteristics of the centrifuge or process used to make the bomb.
A lot of information can be retrieved from the material.
By identifying the ratio of isotopes, they can determine the probable lab of origin (if it is one of the main labs and not someone's garage.)
The can also make some basic determinations as to the level of tech used to make the materials. They can also use it as evidence in any sort of tracking of the materials back to it's source.
The thing to keep in mind about Scaled and some of the other groups out there is that they are working on building suborbital vehicles as a goal in, and of, itself.
Which means that the X-Prize is incidental to Scaled goals here. Scaled is getting paid on contract terms to build this vehicle and it's pretty clear that the prize is just an incidental side-issue to their planned goal. The backers had this in line a long time before X-Prize was fully funded and they did not even enter it until after the Prize was fully funded.
Their primary goal is basically an extension of the tourist market like commercial flights in former military jets. There is a market for people paying $65k to go supersonic. This is something that is their primary goal. An incidental prize of $10 million is not something that can be counted on, so it really won't make much difference to a number of X-Prize developers. They are aiming for a specific niche market that can recover their costs regardless of whether they win the prize, or not.
They are going onto the next phase of flights. That's about all that can be said for it. There isn't much leeway in terms of timing now. If it isn't a go, they aren't going to rush things. $10 million is a lot less than what has been invested in it to this point and their primary aim is to recover the whole amount and then some. The best way to do that is systematically test and improve the vehicle. Their flight rate is remaining consistant to basic flight test timelines. Somewhere in Scaled, there will be a timeline with all sorts of milestones. It could on track for a flight within the prize window. Or not. Either way, they'll fly it when they have tested it to those parameters.
The limit in gaming engines - the core of the game - is more in the threading off the cpu. Same applies to video. You can only process so much information off a single I/O channel between a single processor and however many cards are out it's bus.
The point is that you already have 3 or 4 processors in your house already. And, the trend is towards ubiquity. Once you break the single thread paradigm of game servers, then the selection of how you manage the threading is a somewhat arbitrary decision. Whether it is farmed out to a child card, second cpu, or across a farm is a matter that can be quite flexible.
Instead of looking at making a game scalable on a single computer, how about looking at leveraging it off multiple machines instead.
Have a central box that controls the game mechanics, then farm out the rendering engine to multiple servers. Most homes are moving to multiple computers in any number of of applications.
Now, I generally loath the idea of gridcomputing, but rendering is one of the areas it is good at. Have a central box run calibration tests for the graphics flow, then you can add or remove additional processors as needed. A single processor would represent the lowest level.
So, market a generic game rendering standard that can be ported to any sort of processor (including embedded cpu appliances ), then focus on the console box or computer to combine the results.
OK.. I like a coffee shop in Fort Collins CO that offers internet access.
This coffee shop has entered into no strategic alliances, nor has it spent a ton of money to get internet access.
Basically, what I am curious about is why HP and Starbucks are spending a lot of money hyping a new product line that any coffee shop with internet access offers.
Isn't this basically just a Starbucks using HP computers to hook to iTunes?
That's hardly a revolutionary concept.
I have already seen shops doing this. And, these days, HP on the label of a new innovative direction is a huge redflag. Is this really worth the investment for either company? Starbucks is adding a partner to sell it's own product and split the sales. HP is adding a retail component in an area outside it's expertise. And, the barrier to entry for competition is something like $100 a month..
Anyone with internet access and a couple cd burners at a coffee shop is competition as iTunes is *legal* for use.
Want to bet that they will be trying to roll that horrible IT contract Starbucks signed for internet access into this operation, then slam people with the charges to offset their losses in their regular stores? They were having a lot of customers balk at paying an internet access fee for coffee, but would that apply to a store that is an internet music store first?
Right.. now.. 3 guesses what the solar panels are using for cover..
Look, the things are built with a projected 30 day lifespan. With a deposition rate of 0.33% per day and with some basic oversizing, it isn't worth the effort to try to squeeze an extra design element into this.
The problem here is that the martian dust is only partially understood. The particles are very small.
The evidence right now is that the particles would actually act as an abrasive on the surface of the solar panel. So, this process would actual act the same way as someone dragging sandpaper across the surface of the panels.
Actually, EVA is *not* the answer for Culumbia. There were not handholds, or ways to access areas where they could see the leading edge of the wings, much less underneath. They definately had no means to access them. (The MMU is not flown any longer). The same still applies to Hubble, unless they develope the hardware for what essentially amounts to a single flight.
That 2010 date is the big one. You're looking at 2008 before Hubble. By that time, it'll have been out of action for a year or two (it's gyros are going to be dead long before then). Then, you would be faced with a cascade effect of a rescue mission. They would pull out the ISS payload, launch the rescure mission. The bumped payload would get pushed to the next Shuttle and whatever one it would be going with would likewise get pushed back, then the payload intended for the next flight of the Hubble shuttle would need to be reslated for another shuttle... The final flights of the Shuttle fleet are going to be orchestrated to the smallest detail because the thing is going to be retired in 2010 at the latest. (Arguablly, after the next lost orbitor if it happens before 2010).
They can't really afford the slippage for a rescue. They can rescue a stranded crew from ISS without any payload slippage because of a common destination.
That said.. I think they are going to sit on the easiest thing associated with the CAIB that they can comply with completely until hell freezes over. By doing nothing, they comply completely with the mandated safety requirements as outlined in the CAIB.
Salvage rights do not apply to government owned vessels and equipment.
A good case in point would be the CSA Hunley. Even though it's government no longer exists, all of the CSA's naval assets were transferred to the USA as part of it's surrender. So, when they went to salvage it, they had to get permission from the US government. Same applied to the CSA Alabama.
In space, it is even more restriction as the Space Treaty automatically make the national government the owner of record for anything constracted by it's citizens or corporations. It has not been run through and courts yet, but it might get a little wierd as things start picking up.
Umm. They were planning on de-orbiting it by allowing the atmosphere to drag it down. That is going to happen no matter what they do elsewhere.
Columbia was the only Shuttle that had the capability of returning Hubble. All of the other Shuttles were modified by adding a big airlock to access ISS. To even think about using these for Hubble means looking very closely at having one of the shuttles removed from ISS flights for a period of about 6-8 months. Not giong to happen.
As to the rest.. The CAIB recommended that an independant inspection and repair capability be added to any mission not going to ISS. That means a very large investment in hardware which would be used a grand total of once. This is not a case of an incremental cost. Estimates for the hardware development and testing are on the same order as all of the other associated hardware put together.
Call it $50 million for an ET. $40 million for the remaining work on Hubble hardware. Another $200 million on the inspection and repair capability. Associated management/training costs of about $10 million. Looks like pulling the plug makes a certain amount of monetery sense.
Also, they will not even consider sending anything to Hubble if the Hubble lacks the means to stay stabilized. If it loses another gyro, they ain't flying to it anyway. Hubble has a very large mass and associated moment arm. Even a small wobble will snap off the robot arm like it is nothing and potentially could destroy the Shuttle in the bargain. Hubble *must* be stable for this to go and your main argument is the best argument for not going to Hubble.
I really wish they would cite prior work here. George Herbert published a piece about this back in 1996, if not before. It's an old idea. It was also one of the proposals for a quick mission to the moon back in 1961. The newsgroup also sci.space.policy beats this to death every few years.
The main issues right now are some specific unkowns when it comes to Mars. The core idea of what they are discussing is possible. NASA's baseline mission to Mars calls for a hab to be sent out in advance of the main mission. That will have working equipment running for a couple years converting the atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen and some form of fuel. Then, a few years of manned habitation, then return. It's an incremental increase in cost to make that an indefinately prolonged mission if you allow for repair and resupply.
The author is downplaying one major item though. There is a definate conflict of resources between building a base and science. ISS is a very good example of that. A smaller crew has to be focussed on whatever task is required. I suspect that the initial crews sent would need to be focussed on building out infrastructure, then latter crews directed at the science.
I see the exact same bump here as with any stock that has a lot of media exposure.
There were cases a couple years ago where a stock price would appreciably climb as an "expert" on tv would be ripping it publically. Exposure brings stock movement.
Quite a few experts would bring up stocks they were wanting to dump knowing that exposure drives the price up.
I recall laughing a few years back when the CEO of HP (Lou Platt, I think it was) came on the speakers during one of his quarterly speeches and made the statement "Stocks are an objective measure of how how well a company is doing".
They aren't. They are a reflection of what the stocks are doing. In the SCO case, they are in the press a lot. That means the price will follow. Their stock price has no bearing on how well the company is doing and is at the mercy of having favorable rulings all along the way.
You simply get better resolution with larger baselines. Smaller telescopes in space either need to be linked together, or rely only on the baseline they have available inside their own housing (usually on the order of about 10 meters max. Compare that against earth based telescopes with 10's of meters of baseline). This applies to visible light and some other specific types of telescope.
Where space wins is when they address specific wavelengths that are filtered out by the atmosphere. Hubble really shines in wavelengths that are not visible from the Earth's surface, at all. On the visible wavelengths, it will soon be surpassed by a number of projects.
Because to fly around the earth completely, they would then have to fly across the Pole that is in winter on the next leg.. If you just go from equator to pole and pack you.ve only done half the trip.
(The other issue that the the sun would slowly edge downward onto the horizon and would not be hitting the panels directly reducing the amount of energy available. The formula is actually rather brutal, but the main driver is the sine of the angle of incidence times 1.3KW/m^2).
They state a 60 meter wingspan. That would like be about 6 meters wide, if they keep a 10-1 ratio. The ground and sea also reflect a certain percentage of solar energy. Overall, it looks to me that the would have about 360m^2 of direct sunlight potential and about the same amount of reflected sunlight.
The solar power is about 1.3kw/m^2. That is 460KW of direct energy. If they get a 30% reflection on the underside, that is another 140KW of potential energy. About 600KW total. Figure about 15% efficiency and you get about 90KW of power. That is about 120 HP, which is the same power as the rear engine of used on Voyager on it's round the world flight. Electric engines have an advantage here in that they don't lose power with altitude, so their effective engine power at altitude would be higher than that used on Voyager. Voyager only required two engines for take-off and to provide a secondary engine in case of problems with the first. The weight here will be constant throughout, so they will not need a second engine for take-off. (Voyager was basically a flying fuel tank on take-off and needed 300HP to take-off on it's runway. Once airborne, it only needed 110HP. Without all the fuel on board, 110HP was enough for take-off).
Also, solar panel efficiency improves with a slight reduction in temperature, so they might manage better solar efficiency.
Hmm. There is a dodge I wonder if they have considered. One of the problems with that they are doing is the weight. They have a background in ballooning. I wonder if they have considered incorporating sealed helium bladders in the wings and other areas that are not going to be occupied by people. If they can lower the effective density of the aircraft, then they will effectively lower it's weight. Not sure if it is worth the effort though. The other would be use open those sections to the air, then allow the heat from the solar panels heat the inner wings also effectively lowering the density of the aircraft, but this would not be as effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Clancy got part of it. The base isotopes from known factories are cataloged and since we have access to Russia and a few other countries, we can see if this came from one of them.
But.. If someone has enriched their own materials, the catalog will not show that up. But, there is a lot than can be determined from a detailed analysis of the fissionable material. For instance, an uneven isotope composition throught the material could indicate a compilation of source materials, or maybe the used a centrifuge for the enrichment and the materials show the material crosssection. From that, you should theoretically be able to determine the base characteristics of the centrifuge or process used to make the bomb.
A lot of information can be retrieved from the material.
By identifying the ratio of isotopes, they can determine the probable lab of origin (if it is one of the main labs and not someone's garage.)
The can also make some basic determinations as to the level of tech used to make the materials. They can also use it as evidence in any sort of tracking of the materials back to it's source.
It is a useful dataset, overall.
The thing to keep in mind about Scaled and some of the other groups out there is that they are working on building suborbital vehicles as a goal in, and of, itself.
Which means that the X-Prize is incidental to Scaled goals here. Scaled is getting paid on contract terms to build this vehicle and it's pretty clear that the prize is just an incidental side-issue to their planned goal. The backers had this in line a long time before X-Prize was fully funded and they did not even enter it until after the Prize was fully funded.
Their primary goal is basically an extension of the tourist market like commercial flights in former military jets. There is a market for people paying $65k to go supersonic. This is something that is their primary goal. An incidental prize of $10 million is not something that can be counted on, so it really won't make much difference to a number of X-Prize developers. They are aiming for a specific niche market that can recover their costs regardless of whether they win the prize, or not.
They are going onto the next phase of flights. That's about all that can be said for it. There isn't much leeway in terms of timing now. If it isn't a go, they aren't going to rush things. $10 million is a lot less than what has been invested in it to this point and their primary aim is to recover the whole amount and then some. The best way to do that is systematically test and improve the vehicle. Their flight rate is remaining consistant to basic flight test timelines. Somewhere in Scaled, there will be a timeline with all sorts of milestones. It could on track for a flight within the prize window. Or not. Either way, they'll fly it when they have tested it to those parameters.
Yes. Huge contract for internet service. They had planned to recover the costs through subscription and it is failing badly.
Out of curiousity, because I really don't know the answer here, is what sort of work has been done in real time rendering in Gridcomputing?
"Not good at" is quite often the same as "never been tried"
The limit in gaming engines - the core of the game - is more in the threading off the cpu. Same applies to video. You can only process so much information off a single I/O channel between a single processor and however many cards are out it's bus.
The point is that you already have 3 or 4 processors in your house already. And, the trend is towards ubiquity. Once you break the single thread paradigm of game servers, then the selection of how you manage the threading is a somewhat arbitrary decision. Whether it is farmed out to a child card, second cpu, or across a farm is a matter that can be quite flexible.
Instead of looking at making a game scalable on a single computer, how about looking at leveraging it off multiple machines instead.
Have a central box that controls the game mechanics, then farm out the rendering engine to multiple servers. Most homes are moving to multiple computers in any number of of applications.
Now, I generally loath the idea of gridcomputing, but rendering is one of the areas it is good at. Have a central box run calibration tests for the graphics flow, then you can add or remove additional processors as needed. A single processor would represent the lowest level.
So, market a generic game rendering standard that can be ported to any sort of processor (including embedded cpu appliances ), then focus on the console box or computer to combine the results.
OK.. I like a coffee shop in Fort Collins CO that offers internet access.
This coffee shop has entered into no strategic alliances, nor has it spent a ton of money to get internet access.
Basically, what I am curious about is why HP and Starbucks are spending a lot of money hyping a new product line that any coffee shop with internet access offers.
Isn't this basically just a Starbucks using HP computers to hook to iTunes?
That's hardly a revolutionary concept.
I have already seen shops doing this. And, these days, HP on the label of a new innovative direction is a huge redflag. Is this really worth the investment for either company? Starbucks is adding a partner to sell it's own product and split the sales. HP is adding a retail component in an area outside it's expertise. And, the barrier to entry for competition is something like $100 a month..
Anyone with internet access and a couple cd burners at a coffee shop is competition as iTunes is *legal* for use.
Want to bet that they will be trying to roll that horrible IT contract Starbucks signed for internet access into this operation, then slam people with the charges to offset their losses in their regular stores? They were having a lot of customers balk at paying an internet access fee for coffee, but would that apply to a store that is an internet music store first?
Been following that website for years.. and none of the local missile bases ever get posted, except the one I can't afford
OK. I have noticed a trend of game companies relying on people for their game mechanics.
All they have to do is write the core engine to allow users to interact, then pile on pretty graphics.
The Sims introduced *nothing*. It is a MUD/MUSH/MOO with pictures.
Sorry.. Most of these games are rehashes of earlier games in one form, or another.
Right.. now.. 3 guesses what the solar panels are using for cover..
Look, the things are built with a projected 30 day lifespan. With a deposition rate of 0.33% per day and with some basic oversizing, it isn't worth the effort to try to squeeze an extra design element into this.
The solar panels are not metallic on their sunward surface.
The problem here is that the martian dust is only partially understood. The particles are very small.
The evidence right now is that the particles would actually act as an abrasive on the surface of the solar panel. So, this process would actual act the same way as someone dragging sandpaper across the surface of the panels.
Actually, EVA is *not* the answer for Culumbia. There were not handholds, or ways to access areas where they could see the leading edge of the wings, much less underneath. They definately had no means to access them. (The MMU is not flown any longer). The same still applies to Hubble, unless they develope the hardware for what essentially amounts to a single flight.
That 2010 date is the big one. You're looking at 2008 before Hubble. By that time, it'll have been out of action for a year or two (it's gyros are going to be dead long before then). Then, you would be faced with a cascade effect of a rescue mission. They would pull out the ISS payload, launch the rescure mission. The bumped payload would get pushed to the next Shuttle and whatever one it would be going with would likewise get pushed back, then the payload intended for the next flight of the Hubble shuttle would need to be reslated for another shuttle... The final flights of the Shuttle fleet are going to be orchestrated to the smallest detail because the thing is going to be retired in 2010 at the latest. (Arguablly, after the next lost orbitor if it happens before 2010).
They can't really afford the slippage for a rescue. They can rescue a stranded crew from ISS without any payload slippage because of a common destination.
That said.. I think they are going to sit on the easiest thing associated with the CAIB that they can comply with completely until hell freezes over. By doing nothing, they comply completely with the mandated safety requirements as outlined in the CAIB.
The US government.
Salvage rights do not apply to government owned vessels and equipment.
A good case in point would be the CSA Hunley. Even though it's government no longer exists, all of the CSA's naval assets were transferred to the USA as part of it's surrender. So, when they went to salvage it, they had to get permission from the US government. Same applied to the CSA Alabama.
In space, it is even more restriction as the Space Treaty automatically make the national government the owner of record for anything constracted by it's citizens or corporations. It has not been run through and courts yet, but it might get a little wierd as things start picking up.
Umm. They were planning on de-orbiting it by allowing the atmosphere to drag it down. That is going to happen no matter what they do elsewhere.
Columbia was the only Shuttle that had the capability of returning Hubble. All of the other Shuttles were modified by adding a big airlock to access ISS. To even think about using these for Hubble means looking very closely at having one of the shuttles removed from ISS flights for a period of about 6-8 months. Not giong to happen.
As to the rest.. The CAIB recommended that an independant inspection and repair capability be added to any mission not going to ISS. That means a very large investment in hardware which would be used a grand total of once. This is not a case of an incremental cost. Estimates for the hardware development and testing are on the same order as all of the other associated hardware put together.
Call it $50 million for an ET. $40 million for the remaining work on Hubble hardware. Another $200 million on the inspection and repair capability. Associated management/training costs of about $10 million. Looks like pulling the plug makes a certain amount of monetery sense.
Also, they will not even consider sending anything to Hubble if the Hubble lacks the means to stay stabilized. If it loses another gyro, they ain't flying to it anyway. Hubble has a very large mass and associated moment arm. Even a small wobble will snap off the robot arm like it is nothing and potentially could destroy the Shuttle in the bargain. Hubble *must* be stable for this to go and your main argument is the best argument for not going to Hubble.
I really wish they would cite prior work here. George Herbert published a piece about this back in 1996, if not before. It's an old idea. It was also one of the proposals for a quick mission to the moon back in 1961. The newsgroup also sci.space.policy beats this to death every few years.
The main issues right now are some specific unkowns when it comes to Mars. The core idea of what they are discussing is possible. NASA's baseline mission to Mars calls for a hab to be sent out in advance of the main mission. That will have working equipment running for a couple years converting the atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen and some form of fuel. Then, a few years of manned habitation, then return. It's an incremental increase in cost to make that an indefinately prolonged mission if you allow for repair and resupply.
The author is downplaying one major item though. There is a definate conflict of resources between building a base and science. ISS is a very good example of that. A smaller crew has to be focussed on whatever task is required. I suspect that the initial crews sent would need to be focussed on building out infrastructure, then latter crews directed at the science.
I see the exact same bump here as with any stock that has a lot of media exposure.
There were cases a couple years ago where a stock price would appreciably climb as an "expert" on tv would be ripping it publically. Exposure brings stock movement.
Quite a few experts would bring up stocks they were wanting to dump knowing that exposure drives the price up.
I recall laughing a few years back when the CEO of HP (Lou Platt, I think it was) came on the speakers during one of his quarterly speeches and made the statement "Stocks are an objective measure of how how well a company is doing".
They aren't. They are a reflection of what the stocks are doing. In the SCO case, they are in the press a lot. That means the price will follow. Their stock price has no bearing on how well the company is doing and is at the mercy of having favorable rulings all along the way.
You still have to deal with baseline issues.
You simply get better resolution with larger baselines. Smaller telescopes in space either need to be linked together, or rely only on the baseline they have available inside their own housing (usually on the order of about 10 meters max. Compare that against earth based telescopes with 10's of meters of baseline). This applies to visible light and some other specific types of telescope.
Where space wins is when they address specific wavelengths that are filtered out by the atmosphere. Hubble really shines in wavelengths that are not visible from the Earth's surface, at all. On the visible wavelengths, it will soon be surpassed by a number of projects.
Also, it can be replaced within a couple hours in case of problems.
Because to fly around the earth completely, they would then have to fly across the Pole that is in winter on the next leg.. If you just go from equator to pole and pack you.ve only done half the trip.
(The other issue that the the sun would slowly edge downward onto the horizon and would not be hitting the panels directly reducing the amount of energy available. The formula is actually rather brutal, but the main driver is the sine of the angle of incidence times 1.3KW/m^2).
No reason why it wouldn't be manned.
They state a 60 meter wingspan. That would like be about 6 meters wide, if they keep a 10-1 ratio. The ground and sea also reflect a certain percentage of solar energy. Overall, it looks to me that the would have about 360m^2 of direct sunlight potential and about the same amount of reflected sunlight.
The solar power is about 1.3kw/m^2. That is 460KW of direct energy. If they get a 30% reflection on the underside, that is another 140KW of potential energy. About 600KW total. Figure about 15% efficiency and you get about 90KW of power. That is about 120 HP, which is the same power as the rear engine of used on Voyager on it's round the world flight. Electric engines have an advantage here in that they don't lose power with altitude, so their effective engine power at altitude would be higher than that used on Voyager.
Voyager only required two engines for take-off and to provide a secondary engine in case of problems with the first. The weight here will be constant throughout, so they will not need a second engine for take-off. (Voyager was basically a flying fuel tank on take-off and needed 300HP to take-off on it's runway. Once airborne, it only needed 110HP. Without all the fuel on board, 110HP was enough for take-off).
Also, solar panel efficiency improves with a slight reduction in temperature, so they might manage better solar efficiency.
Hmm. There is a dodge I wonder if they have considered. One of the problems with that they are doing is the weight. They have a background in ballooning. I wonder if they have considered incorporating sealed helium bladders in the wings and other areas that are not going to be occupied by people. If they can lower the effective density of the aircraft, then they will effectively lower it's weight. Not sure if it is worth the effort though. The other would be use open those sections to the air, then allow the heat from the solar panels heat the inner wings also effectively lowering the density of the aircraft, but this would not be as effective.