Precisely. Terrestrial/bog standard GPS uses multiple birds because the costs of doing so are very low. This strategy also provides considerable advantage - while contributing very little to accuracy (outside of surveyor grade units) it means that if you lose track on a bird because it drops below the horizon or the signal is degraded because tree cover or buildings interfere you can maintain an active position solution.
People who know better will trust a good RNG just as well (as long as it's open source)
And how will they know it's a 'good' RNG? Just being able to see the source, or even being able to program, doesn't mean you have the mathematical props to determine how 'random' the generator is.
Before the launched the chemical detectors to Mars, they didn't have a real good idea what chemicals were present in the soil in order to develop the a realistic simulant.
At least now the bone-headed practice of this discrimination is known by the outside world
It's been known by the outside world for centuries that Japan discriminates against this caste. Modern discrimination is equally well known by those who pay a bit of attention.
It's woodworking in the same sense that tossing a TV dinner into a microwave is cooking - I.E. not at all.
That's true if you use a toy CNC machine. But try your TV dinner skills on a 12 foot long CNC router and see how far you get.
Well, that's 'cooking' a banquet using a bank of microwave ovens and prepackaged entrees, appetizers, etc... etc... I.E. it isn't cooking and it still isn't woodworking.
It's not "wookworking" in the sense of fine woodworking, using chisels, planes, and dovetail jigs
There's a lot more to the woodworking field than just fine woodworking. (See "the fallacy of the excluded middle.)
I worked with a large CNC machine for a few years, and it is not easy-peasy point-and-click on a CAD program.
I didn't claim it was a CAD program, I claimed it wasn't woodworking.
And basic mechanical skills lend awareness for programmers to the concepts of "big bulky modules that you have to leave space for", "leave enough slack in the interfaces for you to be able to put things where you need them", "leave in accessible test points where you can check your signals".
If you have programmers doing mechanical systems design - you've got bigger problems than bad mechanical design.
A simple example......it used to be you could stop at a gas station and a couple of guys would come out, fill up your car, check your oil/water and clean your windshield. They didn't need a BA in business. What are these guys supposed to do now?
Stand in the unemployment line after the station they worked at closed because it's prices were not competitive.
Certainly you can't send them overseas... But the overseas can come to *them*.
At least around here (Western WA) much of the physical/trade labor is done by immigrants. When I was visiting my sister in LA she was having her house and yard redone, and again the physical labor was being done by immigrants. (Yes, I talked to them and asked.)
No trade is immune to having residents displaced by immigrants or foreigners willing to do what the natives aren't.
Building new copies of items built with old technology (the R7) is a very different thing from keeping clapped out existing examples of old technology in service.
That being said, the track record I'm referring to is that of their past major space proposals - essentially they are batting.00000 or so.
Largely because those scientists and researchers didn't really do much during Apollo. Apollo was an engineering triumph, and one only possible because the scientists and researchers had been busy during the 50's and were ready to hand over technology ready for final development and implementation.
They're developing a scale model, not one sufficient to actually provide a reboost. Given the increase in size required, there's practically nothing that isn't a concern.
Certainly parts will wear out. They will need to be replaced. Ideally, that was accounted for.
Accounted for by who? Not by the actual builders of the ISS.
As it is, we will have several booms on the station, which should make replace these parts much easier.
In the same way having a pocket knife makes building a shopping mall easier. That is to say, the effect is essentially zero.
As to the drag, have you forgotten VASMIR? It is coming in 2 years. Of course, we will have to think about the electricity for it. Solar cells, or perhaps a small nuke.
No I haven't forgotten VASMIR. But, unlike you, I know that a VASMIR of sufficient size and power to reboost the station is about 1000x larger than any ion propulsion system built to date.
Then, there are concerns of national prestige. When MIR was to be destroyed, there were proposals to sell it to China. For some reason, the different option was chosen.
Russia makes many space proposals, few if any actually go anywhere.
In the case of MIR, assuming the offer was made, I suspect China would decline to buy it because MIR was a worn out piece of shit that was only still operational because the US had been supporting it for the previous five years.
I think it admirable that the Russians are not merely throwing their stuff away but at least show the willingness to keep it up there and try to reuse it.
It's not a willingness to keep it up there - it's a willingness to add to the ongoing stream of Bold Plans and Inspiring Powerpoints that Russia has been creating over the last ten or fifteen years. Exactly none of which have actually gone anywhere, but they do create the image that they are Great Nation and are keeping up with other nations in Boldly Going.
Even if this fails in the end, they will learn a lot from the attempt.
I wasn't aware that the vacuum of space had anything to do with drag. Drag being an issue usually associated with aero and fluid dynamics. Magnetic fields maybe?
The vacuum in LEO is far from perfect, and at the speeds involved you will have small (but significant) amounts of aerodynamic drag. This not only slows the station, but torques it (affecting it's attitude) as well. The additional modules proposed by the OP could produce sufficient torque to overcome the ISS's ability to maintain attitude.
You forgot something else: Damage from space debris (micro-meteors, etc) to the solar paneling, and damage from solar flares.
I didn't forget 'em. I just left 'em out to keep things simple.
So while all the in-car entertainment and motorised windows,cup holders, sun roofs and central locks might break the car itself (engine & chassis) will probably be in a better state after 20 years than a '70s car would have been after 20 years since engine technology has improved and the underside of the car is better protected from rust.
Indeed. Around the time I graduated high school (1981, in North Carolina) a car with 50k miles on it was usually nearing the end of it's useful life and a car with 100k miles on it was virtually unheard of. (And these were cars that the average Joe could and did work on in an area with a strong shade tree mechanic cultural ethic.)
Heck, in the 70's cars didn't even come with warranties.
Meanwhile, my '98 Voyager just keeps humming along - 120k and counting. My wife's Aveo will top 100k sometime this summer and runs like a top.
More likely than not, America is going to allow Bigelow to attach a few units on there and they will ultimately replace the cans.
And what good will replacing the cans do when all the support systems on the trusses and the solar panels wear out?
And yes, the solar panels will wear out - both due to mechanical wear on the rotary joints (without which you can't keep the panels aligned for max power output and minimal drag), and radiation damage to the cells themselves.
Finally, the Sundancer and the metal noodes can be replaced by BA-330's increasing the size of the ISS appreciably.
And decreasing the life of the ISS appreciably and/or increasing maintenance costs significantly. Large lightweight modules means a low ballistic coefficient, which means increased drag and increased effects from drag. The station will slow down and drop into a lower orbit faster than currently, meaning it needs reboost more often.
But look at today's goods. If you buy something from Target, Walmart, heck even American Furniture, it was likely made in China, was made out of the bare bones minimal wood, screwed together (maybe), and costs a great deal less. OTH, if you buy an ethan-allan piece, it is heavy, much better wood, better construction (rabit groves, etc), glued AND screwed, 10 or more coats of fine laquer, etc, etc, etc. And what does it cost? 10x more. Which is going to last for another century?
Neither. The joinery on an Ethan Allan piece is dodgy, and while the wood is better than you'll find at Walmart - it's still cheap crap wood. While the finish is lacquer, it's cheap lacquer sprayed on in as thin a coat as possible. Etc... Etc...
Ethan Allen (and other such places) make a great show of their quality, but for show is all it is. Down underneath (where the uneducated/average consumer won't notice it) it's as cheap as they can get away with. But they sure *look* impressively high quality.
On a long enough scale, no, no orbits are permanent. However, if you get above 3-400 miles or so orbital lifetimes start heading up into centuries. Above a thousand miles of so, millenia.
Besides, why not leave it where it is? It's not like it's in the way or anything. Boosting it to a higher orbit will be an expensive undertaking, and will add to the cost of resupply missions.
He's talking about after the station is shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the British follow the universal practice of properly capitalizing acronyms. The literate ones do anyways.
As such, no the writing style is not correct.
Precisely. Terrestrial/bog standard GPS uses multiple birds because the costs of doing so are very low. This strategy also provides considerable advantage - while contributing very little to accuracy (outside of surveyor grade units) it means that if you lose track on a bird because it drops below the horizon or the signal is degraded because tree cover or buildings interfere you can maintain an active position solution.
And how will they know it's a 'good' RNG? Just being able to see the source, or even being able to program, doesn't mean you have the mathematical props to determine how 'random' the generator is.
Before the launched the chemical detectors to Mars, they didn't have a real good idea what chemicals were present in the soil in order to develop the a realistic simulant.
On the contrary - the US (and USSR) no longer test underground not because it's low-tech, but because they have agreed not to.
Nothing. Here and here are two different areas in the black rectangle at highers levels of zoom, plainly showing the terrain.
Nothing to see, move along, just another of Google Map's many glitches.
It's been known by the outside world for centuries that Japan discriminates against this caste. Modern discrimination is equally well known by those who pay a bit of attention.
Well, that's 'cooking' a banquet using a bank of microwave ovens and prepackaged entrees, appetizers, etc... etc... I.E. it isn't cooking and it still isn't woodworking.
There's a lot more to the woodworking field than just fine woodworking. (See "the fallacy of the excluded middle.)
I didn't claim it was a CAD program, I claimed it wasn't woodworking.
It's woodworking in the same sense that tossing a TV dinner into a microwave is cooking - I.E. not at all.
If you have programmers doing mechanical systems design - you've got bigger problems than bad mechanical design.
Stand in the unemployment line after the station they worked at closed because it's prices were not competitive.
Certainly you can't send them overseas... But the overseas can come to *them*.
At least around here (Western WA) much of the physical/trade labor is done by immigrants. When I was visiting my sister in LA she was having her house and yard redone, and again the physical labor was being done by immigrants. (Yes, I talked to them and asked.)
No trade is immune to having residents displaced by immigrants or foreigners willing to do what the natives aren't.
Building new copies of items built with old technology (the R7) is a very different thing from keeping clapped out existing examples of old technology in service.
That being said, the track record I'm referring to is that of their past major space proposals - essentially they are batting .00000 or so.
Largely because those scientists and researchers didn't really do much during Apollo. Apollo was an engineering triumph, and one only possible because the scientists and researchers had been busy during the 50's and were ready to hand over technology ready for final development and implementation.
They're developing a scale model, not one sufficient to actually provide a reboost. Given the increase in size required, there's practically nothing that isn't a concern.
Accounted for by who? Not by the actual builders of the ISS.
In the same way having a pocket knife makes building a shopping mall easier. That is to say, the effect is essentially zero.
No I haven't forgotten VASMIR. But, unlike you, I know that a VASMIR of sufficient size and power to reboost the station is about 1000x larger than any ion propulsion system built to date.
Nope, I'm "Mr. bases his predictions on their actual track record and trends rather than handwaving and wistful hopes".
Russia makes many space proposals, few if any actually go anywhere.
In the case of MIR, assuming the offer was made, I suspect China would decline to buy it because MIR was a worn out piece of shit that was only still operational because the US had been supporting it for the previous five years.
It's not a willingness to keep it up there - it's a willingness to add to the ongoing stream of Bold Plans and Inspiring Powerpoints that Russia has been creating over the last ten or fifteen years. Exactly none of which have actually gone anywhere, but they do create the image that they are Great Nation and are keeping up with other nations in Boldly Going.
Odds are, there won't even be an attempt.
The vacuum in LEO is far from perfect, and at the speeds involved you will have small (but significant) amounts of aerodynamic drag. This not only slows the station, but torques it (affecting it's attitude) as well. The additional modules proposed by the OP could produce sufficient torque to overcome the ISS's ability to maintain attitude.
I didn't forget 'em. I just left 'em out to keep things simple.
Indeed. Around the time I graduated high school (1981, in North Carolina) a car with 50k miles on it was usually nearing the end of it's useful life and a car with 100k miles on it was virtually unheard of. (And these were cars that the average Joe could and did work on in an area with a strong shade tree mechanic cultural ethic.)
Heck, in the 70's cars didn't even come with warranties.
Meanwhile, my '98 Voyager just keeps humming along - 120k and counting. My wife's Aveo will top 100k sometime this summer and runs like a top.
And what good will replacing the cans do when all the support systems on the trusses and the solar panels wear out?
And yes, the solar panels will wear out - both due to mechanical wear on the rotary joints (without which you can't keep the panels aligned for max power output and minimal drag), and radiation damage to the cells themselves.
And decreasing the life of the ISS appreciably and/or increasing maintenance costs significantly. Large lightweight modules means a low ballistic coefficient, which means increased drag and increased effects from drag. The station will slow down and drop into a lower orbit faster than currently, meaning it needs reboost more often.
Neither. The joinery on an Ethan Allan piece is dodgy, and while the wood is better than you'll find at Walmart - it's still cheap crap wood. While the finish is lacquer, it's cheap lacquer sprayed on in as thin a coat as possible. Etc... Etc...
Ethan Allen (and other such places) make a great show of their quality, but for show is all it is. Down underneath (where the uneducated/average consumer won't notice it) it's as cheap as they can get away with. But they sure *look* impressively high quality.
On a long enough scale, no, no orbits are permanent. However, if you get above 3-400 miles or so orbital lifetimes start heading up into centuries. Above a thousand miles of so, millenia.
He's talking about after the station is shut down.
Well, it also appears that the balance of their complaint is "we just wanna help and Palm hasn't fallen all over itself to appease us like they must".