Imagine having hundreds of hubble-class telescopes actively scanning for mining targets worth $20,000B ea. requiring little to no propellant to harvest.
Why when it can be done from the surface of the Earth?
Gravitational corridors exist that travel through the solar system that require minimal fuel.
Sure, so long as you don't have anything resembling a deadline. (I.E. the savings in fuel for a manned mission would be completely obliterated by the increased life support requirements.)
Materials science is close to being able to construct suitable solar sails capable of freely traveling the solar system.
Solar sails *are* a cool technology - if you're a very small unmanned package with years and years to get where you're going. They pretty much suck, like the gravitational corridors, if you're a manned craft.
We're not quite where we need to be for moving to space, but it's a helluva lot closer than most people think.
That's probably because 'most people' are completely oblivious to the issue at all. Most of the rest of us aren't, but do know the difference between hand waving speculation and hard engineering.
I was more thinking back on my experience as a submariner in the USN, but you pretty much covered what I was thinking. Specialized environment, high situational awareness, limited menu of options, defined procedures and protocols, training, experience - that pretty much describes the situation on the boats too.
I suspect, based on that experience, that practically anyone can emulate a supertasker in such environments - but that shouldn't be mistaken for actually being one. (Though both professions probably by their very nature filter out the lower half of the bell curve.)
That person's feelings are irrelevant to the statistics.
and you have to wonder how many other lesser glitches occur that never get heard about because the casinos decide to pay off anyway to prevent bad publicity.
No I don't. First, because I don't waste my time making vaguely panicky assumptions. Second, because if glitches that cost the casino money were even remotely common they'd take action.
EMF does not cause motors to turn with any appreciable torque.
True, but EMF *can* interfere with the electronics controlling the motor and cause them to issue to commands for the motor to turn with appreciable torque. (I.E. you seem to forget that there's more to the system than just the motors.)
The problem here is in the code.
Thank goodness! Once again a Slashdot poster with almost none of the relevant information in hand has solved a problem that's stumped the real experts.
One possible theory is that interference (internal or external) is causing signals between parts to become corrupted. My understanding (having RTFA) is that they are focusing on the electrical engineering aspects of it. I would imagine that NASA, needing to design and test equipment in the harsh environment of space, is pretty darn good at exactly that.
The harsh environment of space has roughly nothing to do with the electrical engineering aspects however... Boeing (and pretty much any other major aircraft manufacturer) has to deal with the same issues in their electronic controls and glass cockpits. Any one of a dozen or more big companies (like IBM), and a couple of hundred smaller ones have to deal with the same issues when providing equipment to Boeing (and pretty much any other major aircraft manufacturer), or to the DoD, or even for the consumer market. The same goes for even places you might not think of - like Electric Boat.
Then there's the various government bodies... NASA, NIST, the USN's weapons geeks out at China Lake, whatever the USAF's counterpart to China Lake is, LANL, LLNL, Sandia...
Dealing with EMI is part-and-parcel of modern electric and electronic engineering and has been for a couple of decades now.
If NASA is being brought aboard, it's likely for the cachet of having "real rocket scientists" helping with the problem as much as anything else.
You are welcome to prove that international law is only valid in or around the planet Earth. The numerous signatories to the agreements about the moon don't seem to agree with you. (Not to mention it's hilariously funny you'd choose L1.)
That would be really interesting because they could reasonably claim the moon as theirs.
Not without violating international law, which prevents territorial claims on the moon.
The response of various countries to this claim would be even more interesting. I'll bet there would be a lot more interest in going to the moon right away to move out those squatters.
No need to go to the moon - simply stopping their supply flights will do the trick nicely.
No, producing supplies locally is not an option, nor is any other form of self sufficiency. That requires tech that's decades away at best.
A lot of it is laid out in the most excellent trilogy by the historian Peter Levenda, entitled Sinister Forces, a Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft. You read it and think, "OMG, this is some crazy bat-shit from a whacked-out conspiracy nut" until you learn that Levenda is an extremely well-respected, erudite and diligent historian who carefully sources every single item.
So, you've actually verified that his sources are themselves reliable and that his citations actually say what he says they do? There's nothing about being being extremely well-respected, erudite and diligent that intrinsically rules out also being a whacked out conspiracy nut.
"You know the contradiction: The government is good when it gives you free or cheap services but bad when it tries to impose regulation to prevent abusive behavior: doublethink ungood.'"
Sounds like corporations really are just like individual [meat] persons.
It makes me sad the state of our local space exploration.
We're doing just fine at exploring space. What we're sucking at is providing male enhancement pills and porn for those who don't recognize the difference between exploration and stunts.
Outside of the science and non controversial topics, yeah. Its "generally" accurate. But it has many glaring holes where its only about as "generally" accurate as your average coffee table book or Discovery/History channel program on the subject.
Which is an entirely predictable outcome of having nonspecialists write articles on topics they really don't understand by stringing together citations from works they haven't the experience to know the context of. The belief that anyone can write an article on anything, and have it be accurate, seems to me to be the same as the belief that "any manager (MBA) can manage anything". And we all know how well that's worked out.
Slashdot Mirror
Why when it can be done from the surface of the Earth?
Sure, so long as you don't have anything resembling a deadline. (I.E. the savings in fuel for a manned mission would be completely obliterated by the increased life support requirements.)
Solar sails *are* a cool technology - if you're a very small unmanned package with years and years to get where you're going. They pretty much suck, like the gravitational corridors, if you're a manned craft.
That's probably because 'most people' are completely oblivious to the issue at all. Most of the rest of us aren't, but do know the difference between hand waving speculation and hard engineering.
The subject says it all.
Child's play to someone with that level of training. Not to Joe Sixpack.
As for the rest of your comment, I don't know how to answer. It just gets even more nonsensical as it goes on.
I was more thinking back on my experience as a submariner in the USN, but you pretty much covered what I was thinking. Specialized environment, high situational awareness, limited menu of options, defined procedures and protocols, training, experience - that pretty much describes the situation on the boats too.
I suspect, based on that experience, that practically anyone can emulate a supertasker in such environments - but that shouldn't be mistaken for actually being one. (Though both professions probably by their very nature filter out the lower half of the bell curve.)
That's not necessarily a supertasker - that's being well trained and experienced.
No, a single 10k payout wouldn't be noticed. A pattern of them, certainly would.
In other words, you're on drugs and indulging in horseshit handwaving.
A business that wouldn't bat an eye at a $10,00 loss? You must be on drugs.
That person's feelings are irrelevant to the statistics.
No I don't. First, because I don't waste my time making vaguely panicky assumptions. Second, because if glitches that cost the casino money were even remotely common they'd take action.
True, but EMF *can* interfere with the electronics controlling the motor and cause them to issue to commands for the motor to turn with appreciable torque. (I.E. you seem to forget that there's more to the system than just the motors.)
Thank goodness! Once again a Slashdot poster with almost none of the relevant information in hand has solved a problem that's stumped the real experts.
Hundreds of thousands of slot 'pulls' an hour across the United Sates - one significant newsworthy error.
Sounds pretty damm reliable to me.
The harsh environment of space has roughly nothing to do with the electrical engineering aspects however... Boeing (and pretty much any other major aircraft manufacturer) has to deal with the same issues in their electronic controls and glass cockpits. Any one of a dozen or more big companies (like IBM), and a couple of hundred smaller ones have to deal with the same issues when providing equipment to Boeing (and pretty much any other major aircraft manufacturer), or to the DoD, or even for the consumer market. The same goes for even places you might not think of - like Electric Boat.
Then there's the various government bodies... NASA, NIST, the USN's weapons geeks out at China Lake, whatever the USAF's counterpart to China Lake is, LANL, LLNL, Sandia...
Dealing with EMI is part-and-parcel of modern electric and electronic engineering and has been for a couple of decades now.
If NASA is being brought aboard, it's likely for the cachet of having "real rocket scientists" helping with the problem as much as anything else.
Hint: When a nation becomes a signatory to a treaty, her citizens are thus bound as well.
Idiot.
You have a profound lack of a clue.
You are welcome to prove that international law is only valid in or around the planet Earth. The numerous signatories to the agreements about the moon don't seem to agree with you. (Not to mention it's hilariously funny you'd choose L1.)
Not without violating international law, which prevents territorial claims on the moon.
No need to go to the moon - simply stopping their supply flights will do the trick nicely.
No, producing supplies locally is not an option, nor is any other form of self sufficiency. That requires tech that's decades away at best.
Which is pretty much true of every Mars lander.
For those who don't know, Miles O'Brien is fairly well respected aviation and space journalist.
So, you've actually verified that his sources are themselves reliable and that his citations actually say what he says they do? There's nothing about being being extremely well-respected, erudite and diligent that intrinsically rules out also being a whacked out conspiracy nut.
Anything in a low enough orbit low enough that the 'CubeSail' would make a difference, is in an orbit low enough that it's going to come down anyhow.
"You know the contradiction: The government is good when it gives you free or cheap services but bad when it tries to impose regulation to prevent abusive behavior: doublethink ungood.'"
Sounds like corporations really are just like individual [meat] persons.
We're doing just fine at exploring space. What we're sucking at is providing male enhancement pills and porn for those who don't recognize the difference between exploration and stunts.
Since (IIRC) SALT II, the bombs have been counted separately from the launchers specifically because of MIRV.
ROTFLMAO.
In other words, you're unethical but you've created a convoluted justification as to how it can't be possibly unethical. It's just not your fault.
Outside of the science and non controversial topics, yeah. Its "generally" accurate. But it has many glaring holes where its only about as "generally" accurate as your average coffee table book or Discovery/History channel program on the subject.
Which is an entirely predictable outcome of having nonspecialists write articles on topics they really don't understand by stringing together citations from works they haven't the experience to know the context of. The belief that anyone can write an article on anything, and have it be accurate, seems to me to be the same as the belief that "any manager (MBA) can manage anything". And we all know how well that's worked out.