Why waste our time with producing something like "oil-based gasoline" when a diesel engine will run fine and dandy on the oil that we can just squeeze out of the end product of about half a billion years worth of plant evolution?
If such a plant based oil existed - you'd have a point. But it doesn't.
What we have is plant based oil that, before it can be 'squeezed', requires (energy and petrochemical consuming) cultivation, followed by (energy consuming) processing, followed by (energy consuming) transport (on an infrastructure that doesn't yet exist). Bio-diesel on a large scale isn't near as simple or straightforward as you seem to believe.
With all of our previous phones, we would lock them and if my son picked them up it would be no big deal. Now, we are forced to either have our phones on us at all time, or put them on the top of the fridge or some other extremely inaccessible place.
Of course it's RIM's fault you lack the parenting skills to teach a two year old there are some things he simply does not touch.
Early hobbyist computers were instant-on, too. Before diskette drives were common, the machine had everything it needed to boot stored in ROM and was up displaying some kind of welcome prompt within a fraction of a second. Even when the serpent entered Eden in the form of "operating systems," startup was quick.
That 'serpent' was always there. Even the lowly VIC-20 had an operating system - one that was completely based in ROM. I suspect very few Slashdot readers have used a computer that *didn't* have an OS of some form. (Even though that form may only have been recognizeable to a computer scientist.)
It seems to me to be lazy design that says that booting consists of more than loading code into RAM and establishing state for the internal hardware. I have no idea why OSes must churn away for big fractions of a minute _running_ code. Why can't it just load a snapshot of the desired final state of RAM?
That works just fine for computers whose hardware state never changes across the entire life of the machine, or who have a seperate method of informing the OS that it needs to re-initialize it's hardware state. The need to churn away determining the machine configuration and setting software configuration is a consequence of the 'open architecture' of the IBM PC.
Maybe for the missiles, but not for the subs themselves. But Britain never developed its own sea-launched ballistic missiles independent of the US, unlike France.
Not just the missiles (and guidance systems), but the fire control and launch control systems as well - I.E. all of the software and firmware that makes the weapons system work is US created and US controlled.
I hate to reply to myself - but everyone replying to me is missing the point. (Probably because they don't know how the weapons system works - which as a former Trident tech, I do.)
Who built the submarine and the warheads matters about as much as a fart in a windstorm. All off the software and firmware in the Fire Control and Launch Control systems, as well as the soft and firmware in the MK6 Guidance System, as well as the firmware in various control units inside the missile... Were developed in the US and are under US control. I.E. the exact same issue that Mr. Blair is making a fuss over in the instance of the JSF - but which fuss is noticeably absent with Trident.
The British Trident submarines & warheads are British designed & built. It's the missiles that are in the control of the Americans.
The FCS (fire control system) and LCS (launch control system) are US designed and US built - their firmware and software is under US control. Who built the submarines and the warheads matters about as much as fart in a windstorm.
To be frank, the only software that will ultimately protect you is another operating system. Windows is fundamentally broken. Switch to Linux - or better yet, Mac OS X - and you will not only have a better internet experience, you'll have a better desktop experience overall.
Oh, yes. Not being able to run the MMORPG's of my choice massively improves my internet experience and not being able to run the games I want massively improves my desktop experience.
Given the choice between living in a sterile and protected world - or living in a world where I have a broad choice of options.... Well, it's not really a choice is it?
It's fascinating that you, and Mr. Blair, make a big deal of this - without mentioning that the UK's strategic deterrent is already in the hands of another country. The U.K. is utterly dependent on the U.S. for software and spares for the Trident-II submarines.
The UK deterrent is carried in UK designed and built and operated submarines with UK built warheads. These are based on a US design, but modified to out requirements. The Trident missiles are leased from the US, and as such are swapped for replacements when they are due for maintenance. The UK retains control over the use and deployment of its nuclear weapons, though these are generally going to be inline with the NATO doctrine.
What you say is true - but has utterly nothing to do with what I said. The software for the MK98 FCS and the firmware inside the missile is under US control. I.E. precisely what Mr. Blair is complaing about for the JSF.
I love the dept. line for this one. The UK is reading the "EULA" first, and that's why we're threatening to cancel a multi-billion dollar order.
After all, would you leave the ability to maintain your air force in the hands of another nation? (And seriously, even if the order goes ahead, would the US seriously expect the UK to honour some contractual agreement not to install working software in its military aircraft?)
It's fascinating that you, and Mr. Blair, make a big deal of this - without mentioning that the UK's strategic deterrent is already in the hands of another country. The U.K. is utterly dependent on the U.S. for software and spares for the Trident-II submarines.
While everyone scrambles to make portable mp3 players and game stations and search engines, this huge demand for near-realtime satellite imagery is going unfilled.
Mostly because there *isn't* a huge demand for near-realtime imagery outside of the geek 'oh wow man this is cool' community.
The UK server doesn't have enough bandwidth to do it but maybe if someone looked away from their Macworld program for a second they could offer a live version of Google maps.
Do you know why Google Maps/Earth is free? Because imaging companies own the rights to the photographs they take - after selling them to the original customer for an arm and a leg, the wait a while and sell them to anyone who wants them at fire sale prices. (This is why GM/GE is typically 2+ years out of date.)
The free stuff you get from NASA and the ESA is far too low res to be useful for any kind of monitoring, and orbital mechanics says you can't get near-realtime coverage of any arbitrary point without multiple (4-5+) birds.
Al Gore had an idea to orbit a satellite that provides a continual view of the Earth.
Triana would have orbited pretty far out - it's 'continuous view' would have the equivalent of what you would see if you set Google Earth to an eye altitude of 10k miles. (I.E. pretty much 'move along, nothing to see here'.)
Shame, I would have like to have seen that publicized and championed by the media. A little cultural enlightenment might have gone a long way.
The problem with Triana (GoreSat) is that the media saw it for what it was - an expensive election year stunt with little scientific value and limited educational value. In fact, it's extremely limited scientific goals were an afterthought - added in an attempt to gain support for the mission. The radiometer wasn't in the original design.
You have just proven exactly why the XPrize exists, and all the other grass roots space related initiatives going on. Engineers have a notoriously hard time thinking outside of their box sometimes.
Sometimes outside the box is a rich and verdant pasture - sometimes an empty and blasted wasteland. Merely going outside the box is no sure guarantee of sucess.
And need I point the lack of sucess from the alt.space community? Not to mention the rocky ground of economic viability they work very hard to divert attention away from? (Don't get me wrong - I'm a strong supporter of alt.space, but supporting does not include deluding myself to reality. There are many hurdles yet ahead.)
So you state this is impossible at anything less than 50kg...but this probe needs almost NONE of what adds up to the weight of the rover.
I've said this once before, but you failed to understand it. So I'll repeat myself;
You cannot compare the weight of the rover on the ground with the weight of the probe on the orbiter. This is apples and oranges as the weight of the rover on the ground does not include the weight of the descent systems.
That's why I keep pointing at Beagle 2 and Huygens - because they, not the rovers are the closest thing to this notional probe. Look at the Deep Space 2 probes that were carried with the Mars Polar Lander - they weighed in at 2.4kg, and were *far* less ambitious than the probe under discussion. (And you need to work on your reading comprehension - as I did not state it was impossible, I stated it was unlikely.)
Damned, look at what they fit in a Cell Phone these days...wireless, camera, a million other things not required by this....50kg...come on now.
Now look at all the things a probe requires that a cell phone does not. A heatshield, a parachute, retrorockets, a (high precision) guidance and control system, thermal insulation, some form of some from of RCS and descent aerodynamic control, structure to withstand the shock and vibration of launch, a higher power higher and bandwith communications system, a *much* bigger battery, a *much* higher resolution camera... Not to mention a lifespan in an extreme enviroment of from two years to as many as eight years.
Think Simple. Never mind backup this, redundant that, gotta make sure it'll run as long as possible...It requires an extremely small lifespan upon activation. Keep thinking simple, and small. Small enough that multiples make the system redundant in and of itself.
I *am* doing just that. But there are hard limits on how small and how light you can make it and still have it perform a useful mission with the parameters specified by the OP. (And it's still going to be expensive to attain a reasonable survival and performance ratio.)
I'm sorry, but you most certainly are shitting on this idea out of hand. I'm starting to suspect that you're just a troll with absolutely zero knowledge on the subject...At least, I hope so.
I'm not 'shitting on this idea out of hand', I'm reporting cold hard engineering reality. You cannot seem to discern between the assumption that the probe is possible within your parameters - and actual examination of the probe from an engineering point of view.
For example - the requirement for accurate targeting *alone* (pinpoint according to the OP) increases the weight of the probe by at least 4-20kg (in the form of a reaction control system for the ballistic phase). The need to slow it down enough, or the need to survive landing (the latter is much more doable), long enough to transmit those high resolution pictures *also* adds another 10-20kg. Thus, our (estimated and optimistic) minimum weight is already at 14kg and we haven't even put the instruments on yet
Airport security is a joke, and all he did is point that out.
And that's the crux of the problem - he didn't act like a researcher (as he claims) and merely point a security hole (as you claim). He crossed the line from researcher to (potentially) criminal when he published a tool on the web that had no other purpose than to make it possible for others to circumvent security.
The idea is not something even remotely like Huygens or Beagle 2, but you don't seem to be able to get past that.
I understand *completely* what the probe is intended to do. I also, unlike you and the OP, understand the engineering realities involved.
It's fine if you want to declare this impossible and have nothing to do with it. But must you shit on someone else's parade in the process?
I didn't declare it impossible, I declared it impossible within the weight/cost constraints you and OP have placed on the probe. (Which is a very different thing.) Such a probe is quite possible and fairly easily doable, but it won't be as cheap or light as you and the OP seem to think.
I haven't 'shit on' anyones parade, I have discussed cold hard engineering reality. That you cannot discern the differnce is not my problem.
In other words - your mind is made up, and you cannot be bothered with facts. It's so much easier to make ad hominem attacks than to even take the trivial effort to look up the weights of Huygens or Beagle 2.
Contrary to your (unfounded) belief, I think probes like this are a good idea. But the difference between the OP, you, and me... Is that I have actually studied the issues and thought about them. But you and the OP merely toss out handwaving nonsense without making the most trivial of efforts to attempt to understand what is involved.
Here's a free clue for you: What something weighs on Mars is utterly meaningless. What matters is how much it weighs on Earth because the payload capacities of a probe are based on the launcher and what it can loft on Earth.
You are purposefully taking an overly pessimistic stance.
No, I'm being realistic.
Are you really trying to tell us that it would be impossible to build a probe for under 50kg that could take a few pictures, sample a very limited and simple amount of inputs, and do so cheaply?
Yes - I am. Because to start with, space rated components are not cheap. The launch alone is very expensive.
I guarantee you it can be done in under 1kg. Quite possibly a lot less than 1 kg. Don't know where you're getting your numbers from...
1kg? You haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about. The battery alone required to power the probe from seperation, through re-entry, and descent will weight at least that much (and probably considerably more) all by itself.
the Rover is 175kg, most of that required for batteries, motors, wheels, suspension...things a vehicle needs to Move and Stay Alive for a long time.
The rover on the surface weighs that much - the rover in cruise phase weighed considerably more.
There is a lot more to a probe hanging on an orbiter than you seem to think. You fail to consider the weight of the heatshield and backshell, the retrorocket package (they can't simply be 'fired' like the OP thought), the parachutes, etc... etc... Huygens had a similiar mission as these microprobes - and weighed nearly 300kg.
By the way, indefinite != forever, as you appear to believe.
'Indefinite' means, in this context and according to the OP's specification, anywhere from months to years in orbit around Mars - not to mention a cruise phase of up to a year.
Micro-Probes need not be a budget busting accesory to add if you are already committed to going to Mars, again the Huygens analogy.
In some fantasy world where 'micro' probes can what you think they can do, yeah. Here in the real world - the probes aren't going to be 'micro' and with minimal impact on the orbiter. The will (most likely) weigh in excess of 100kg, which is over half the total science payload of your average Mars bound probe. That's a budget buster. Even in the unlikely event you can get down to 50kg - it's still heavy, it's still a massive (and expensive) impact on the orbiter carrying it.
I'll repeat this a third time since you cannot seem to grasp it: "Orbiting around Mars in reserve for an indefinite period of time" and "cheap and expendable" are mutually exclusive. Period.
Actually I thought about your objection and decided it isn't necessarily so. It might be possible to make the delivery of such micro-probes one of the mission objectives of a suitably designed orbiter.
Which for all intents and purposes means a dedicated orbiter - thus sending "cheap and expendable" right back out the window.
Being housed interim on the orbiter, the micro-probes need not be engineered to survive the rigors of space on their own, nor independently receive ground control, nor remain powered up continuously.
Which means considerable weight and complexity on the orbiter. And "cheap and expendable" goes out the window, *again*.
"Orbiting around Mars in reserve for an indefinite period of time" and "cheap and expendable" are mutually exclusive. Period.
It would be cool if NASA could keep a few micro-probes in reserve in Mars orbit that could be de-orbited as needed to investigate these kinds of phenomenon as they are discovered. [... snippage...] If they do survive the landing they only need enough power to last long enough to send a few more surface condition measurements -- again the emphasis on cheap and expendable.
"Cheap and expendable" and "in orbit around Mars in reserve for an indefinite amount of time" are mutally exclusive.
Start small, with a dicrete component, and emphasize the PR benefit. "MegaCom Gives Back" will raise some goodwill for the company.
Sure - it will create some goodwill. Mostly among the F/OSS community, which is unlikely to be MegaCom's target demographic. It'll give the Slashdot and F/OSS folks a few warm fuzzies - but the net PR result will likely be close to nil.
The fact that this same lame question keeps getting asked and getting the same lame and predictable answers should be a clue that there really isn't a business case for "MegaCom Gives Back". It's a political and philosophical activity.
From TFA:
How can I, being a lowly developer, convince our management that it makes more sense to release many of these customizations back into the Open Source community?
We see these questions (or ones very much like them) on Ask Slashdot on a fairly regular basis. This leads me to an Ask Slashdot of my very own: Why do so many F/OSS supporters see it as their holy mission to impose their political and philosophical beliefs on the company? The Slashdot and F/OSS communities would be among the first to howl about how their rights and beliefs were being trampled on if one of their co-workers suggested that their company should indulge in a faith based activity - so why the double standard?
Lastly, there's another issue. What happens when the sun goes behind a cloud? You need to be able to cover the entire slack in an instant, because you NEED a constant power output. That means you NEED enough GAS powerplants to power the whole world too, as they're the only type of power plant you can literally turn the dial and turn up the output.
Actually - that's not true at all. Coal fired plants using pulverized coal can do so, as can nuclear plants, hydro plants, and oil fired plants.
The real problem is that all of the thermal plants take time for the increased output of heat to become increased output of electrical energy. (This isn't a problem day-to-day currently because you rarely see an increase in demand equivalent to dropping an entire plant equivalent off line.) All of this of course assumes the plants are already running in hot standby.
If you are just going to put bare panels somewhere it makes more sense to stick them on the top of existing poles instead of in some big facility since they act as discrete units anyway. Once they get rolled out there really isn't much that has to be done with them - the photovoltaics that existed when Einstein was young probably still work.
Not true.
Photovoltaics output DC - while the power those poles carry is AC. That means conversion electronics (which can and will fail).
Many places the panels will get coated with pollen/dust, bird poop, etc... etc... which will need to be cleaned.
Photovoltaics do breakdown - both the coatings on the cells and the wiring and interconnections are vulnerable.
The greatest threat to our rights is hypersensitive assholes like yourself who believe that their rights trumps everyone elses - and that threats are the only adequate means of getting a point across.
Close, but it is time we became blunt with tyrants like the original poster. The original poster is a wannabe tyrant who believes he is superior to the normal mortals standing in his way and seeks to impose his supposedly superior morality on us lesser beings through the use of force. In other words, he is a fairly typical example of a modern leftist.
Sadly - he's also not to distant a kin to the modern folks on the further right hand portions of the spectrum either. The only essential difference is that (generally) those on the right believe in invoking the force of law (after creating or reinterpreting the law to serve their needs) rather than personal force. A tyrant of the right is no less frightening than one of the left.
They don't believe in persuasion in the customary sense that Citizens in a Free society debate issues and come to decisions because they have accumulated decades of bitter experience that when they openly discuss their goals the People reject them. So they are done talking. Convinced of their own moral superiority, intelligence, education and wisdom they are ready to impose their vision at gunpoint, by terrorism, and through blatent lies to attain power, etc. Because for them the ends justify the means.
The real problem is that virtually *everyone* has become radicalized over the last forty years. Over on the far left are people who want to dominate.. Just to their right is the PC movement who want re-education by controlling the language and enforced norms of behavior. Pass through the middle - and you find the Christian right who also want re-education, control of the language, and enforced norms of behavior, differing from the near left only in goal. Beyond them, on the far right, you find the same behavior as the far left - again really differing only in ultimate goals and only slightly in methodology.
For someone who sits a little right of center - its frightening no matter which direction I look.
With respect, our right to exercise our constitutional rights to free speech and assembly trump the shopper's right to get to the Disney Store on 5th Avenue unimpeded,
That's an opinion - not a fact of nature or law. I snipped the remainder of your reply but will say this - it's nothing but a demonstration of your inability to differentiate between fact and opinion and of your belief that threats are a reasonable substitute for reasoned discourse.
Slashdot Mirror
If such a plant based oil existed - you'd have a point. But it doesn't.
What we have is plant based oil that, before it can be 'squeezed', requires (energy and petrochemical consuming) cultivation, followed by (energy consuming) processing, followed by (energy consuming) transport (on an infrastructure that doesn't yet exist). Bio-diesel on a large scale isn't near as simple or straightforward as you seem to believe.
Of course it's RIM's fault you lack the parenting skills to teach a two year old there are some things he simply does not touch.
That 'serpent' was always there. Even the lowly VIC-20 had an operating system - one that was completely based in ROM. I suspect very few Slashdot readers have used a computer that *didn't* have an OS of some form. (Even though that form may only have been recognizeable to a computer scientist.)
That works just fine for computers whose hardware state never changes across the entire life of the machine, or who have a seperate method of informing the OS that it needs to re-initialize it's hardware state. The need to churn away determining the machine configuration and setting software configuration is a consequence of the 'open architecture' of the IBM PC.
Not just the missiles (and guidance systems), but the fire control and launch control systems as well - I.E. all of the software and firmware that makes the weapons system work is US created and US controlled.
I hate to reply to myself - but everyone replying to me is missing the point. (Probably because they don't know how the weapons system works - which as a former Trident tech, I do.)
Who built the submarine and the warheads matters about as much as a fart in a windstorm. All off the software and firmware in the Fire Control and Launch Control systems, as well as the soft and firmware in the MK6 Guidance System, as well as the firmware in various control units inside the missile... Were developed in the US and are under US control. I.E. the exact same issue that Mr. Blair is making a fuss over in the instance of the JSF - but which fuss is noticeably absent with Trident.
The FCS (fire control system) and LCS (launch control system) are US designed and US built - their firmware and software is under US control. Who built the submarines and the warheads matters about as much as fart in a windstorm.
Oh, yes. Not being able to run the MMORPG's of my choice massively improves my internet experience and not being able to run the games I want massively improves my desktop experience.
Given the choice between living in a sterile and protected world - or living in a world where I have a broad choice of options.... Well, it's not really a choice is it?
What you say is true - but has utterly nothing to do with what I said. The software for the MK98 FCS and the firmware inside the missile is under US control. I.E. precisely what Mr. Blair is complaing about for the JSF.
It's fascinating that you, and Mr. Blair, make a big deal of this - without mentioning that the UK's strategic deterrent is already in the hands of another country. The U.K. is utterly dependent on the U.S. for software and spares for the Trident-II submarines.
Mostly because there *isn't* a huge demand for near-realtime imagery outside of the geek 'oh wow man this is cool' community.
Do you know why Google Maps/Earth is free? Because imaging companies own the rights to the photographs they take - after selling them to the original customer for an arm and a leg, the wait a while and sell them to anyone who wants them at fire sale prices. (This is why GM/GE is typically 2+ years out of date.)
The free stuff you get from NASA and the ESA is far too low res to be useful for any kind of monitoring, and orbital mechanics says you can't get near-realtime coverage of any arbitrary point without multiple (4-5+) birds.
Triana would have orbited pretty far out - it's 'continuous view' would have the equivalent of what you would see if you set Google Earth to an eye altitude of 10k miles. (I.E. pretty much 'move along, nothing to see here'.)
The problem with Triana (GoreSat) is that the media saw it for what it was - an expensive election year stunt with little scientific value and limited educational value. In fact, it's extremely limited scientific goals were an afterthought - added in an attempt to gain support for the mission. The radiometer wasn't in the original design.
Sometimes outside the box is a rich and verdant pasture - sometimes an empty and blasted wasteland. Merely going outside the box is no sure guarantee of sucess.
And need I point the lack of sucess from the alt.space community? Not to mention the rocky ground of economic viability they work very hard to divert attention away from? (Don't get me wrong - I'm a strong supporter of alt.space, but supporting does not include deluding myself to reality. There are many hurdles yet ahead.)
I've said this once before, but you failed to understand it. So I'll repeat myself;
You cannot compare the weight of the rover on the ground with the weight of the probe on the orbiter. This is apples and oranges as the weight of the rover on the ground does not include the weight of the descent systems.
That's why I keep pointing at Beagle 2 and Huygens - because they, not the rovers are the closest thing to this notional probe. Look at the Deep Space 2 probes that were carried with the Mars Polar Lander - they weighed in at 2.4kg, and were *far* less ambitious than the probe under discussion. (And you need to work on your reading comprehension - as I did not state it was impossible, I stated it was unlikely.)
Now look at all the things a probe requires that a cell phone does not. A heatshield, a parachute, retrorockets, a (high precision) guidance and control system, thermal insulation, some form of some from of RCS and descent aerodynamic control, structure to withstand the shock and vibration of launch, a higher power higher and bandwith communications system, a *much* bigger battery, a *much* higher resolution camera... Not to mention a lifespan in an extreme enviroment of from two years to as many as eight years.
I *am* doing just that. But there are hard limits on how small and how light you can make it and still have it perform a useful mission with the parameters specified by the OP. (And it's still going to be expensive to attain a reasonable survival and performance ratio.)
I'm not 'shitting on this idea out of hand', I'm reporting cold hard engineering reality. You cannot seem to discern between the assumption that the probe is possible within your parameters - and actual examination of the probe from an engineering point of view.
For example - the requirement for accurate targeting *alone* (pinpoint according to the OP) increases the weight of the probe by at least 4-20kg (in the form of a reaction control system for the ballistic phase). The need to slow it down enough, or the need to survive landing (the latter is much more doable), long enough to transmit those high resolution pictures *also* adds another 10-20kg. Thus, our (estimated and optimistic) minimum weight is already at 14kg and we haven't even put the instruments on yet
And that's the crux of the problem - he didn't act like a researcher (as he claims) and merely point a security hole (as you claim). He crossed the line from researcher to (potentially) criminal when he published a tool on the web that had no other purpose than to make it possible for others to circumvent security.
I understand *completely* what the probe is intended to do. I also, unlike you and the OP, understand the engineering realities involved.
I didn't declare it impossible, I declared it impossible within the weight/cost constraints you and OP have placed on the probe. (Which is a very different thing.) Such a probe is quite possible and fairly easily doable, but it won't be as cheap or light as you and the OP seem to think.
I haven't 'shit on' anyones parade, I have discussed cold hard engineering reality. That you cannot discern the differnce is not my problem.
In other words - your mind is made up, and you cannot be bothered with facts. It's so much easier to make ad hominem attacks than to even take the trivial effort to look up the weights of Huygens or Beagle 2.
Contrary to your (unfounded) belief, I think probes like this are a good idea. But the difference between the OP, you, and me... Is that I have actually studied the issues and thought about them. But you and the OP merely toss out handwaving nonsense without making the most trivial of efforts to attempt to understand what is involved.
Here's a free clue for you: What something weighs on Mars is utterly meaningless. What matters is how much it weighs on Earth because the payload capacities of a probe are based on the launcher and what it can loft on Earth.
No, I'm being realistic.
Yes - I am. Because to start with, space rated components are not cheap. The launch alone is very expensive.
1kg? You haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about. The battery alone required to power the probe from seperation, through re-entry, and descent will weight at least that much (and probably considerably more) all by itself.
The rover on the surface weighs that much - the rover in cruise phase weighed considerably more.
There is a lot more to a probe hanging on an orbiter than you seem to think. You fail to consider the weight of the heatshield and backshell, the retrorocket package (they can't simply be 'fired' like the OP thought), the parachutes, etc... etc... Huygens had a similiar mission as these microprobes - and weighed nearly 300kg.
'Indefinite' means, in this context and according to the OP's specification, anywhere from months to years in orbit around Mars - not to mention a cruise phase of up to a year.
In some fantasy world where 'micro' probes can what you think they can do, yeah. Here in the real world - the probes aren't going to be 'micro' and with minimal impact on the orbiter. The will (most likely) weigh in excess of 100kg, which is over half the total science payload of your average Mars bound probe. That's a budget buster. Even in the unlikely event you can get down to 50kg - it's still heavy, it's still a massive (and expensive) impact on the orbiter carrying it.
I'll repeat this a third time since you cannot seem to grasp it: "Orbiting around Mars in reserve for an indefinite period of time" and "cheap and expendable" are mutually exclusive. Period.
Which for all intents and purposes means a dedicated orbiter - thus sending "cheap and expendable" right back out the window.
Which means considerable weight and complexity on the orbiter. And "cheap and expendable" goes out the window, *again*.
"Orbiting around Mars in reserve for an indefinite period of time" and "cheap and expendable" are mutually exclusive. Period.
"Cheap and expendable" and "in orbit around Mars in reserve for an indefinite amount of time" are mutally exclusive.
Sure - it will create some goodwill. Mostly among the F/OSS community, which is unlikely to be MegaCom's target demographic. It'll give the Slashdot and F/OSS folks a few warm fuzzies - but the net PR result will likely be close to nil.
The fact that this same lame question keeps getting asked and getting the same lame and predictable answers should be a clue that there really isn't a business case for "MegaCom Gives Back". It's a political and philosophical activity.
From TFA:
We see these questions (or ones very much like them) on Ask Slashdot on a fairly regular basis. This leads me to an Ask Slashdot of my very own: Why do so many F/OSS supporters see it as their holy mission to impose their political and philosophical beliefs on the company? The Slashdot and F/OSS communities would be among the first to howl about how their rights and beliefs were being trampled on if one of their co-workers suggested that their company should indulge in a faith based activity - so why the double standard?
Actually - that's not true at all. Coal fired plants using pulverized coal can do so, as can nuclear plants, hydro plants, and oil fired plants.
The real problem is that all of the thermal plants take time for the increased output of heat to become increased output of electrical energy. (This isn't a problem day-to-day currently because you rarely see an increase in demand equivalent to dropping an entire plant equivalent off line.) All of this of course assumes the plants are already running in hot standby.
Not true.
Sadly - he's also not to distant a kin to the modern folks on the further right hand portions of the spectrum either. The only essential difference is that (generally) those on the right believe in invoking the force of law (after creating or reinterpreting the law to serve their needs) rather than personal force. A tyrant of the right is no less frightening than one of the left.
The real problem is that virtually *everyone* has become radicalized over the last forty years. Over on the far left are people who want to dominate.. Just to their right is the PC movement who want re-education by controlling the language and enforced norms of behavior. Pass through the middle - and you find the Christian right who also want re-education, control of the language, and enforced norms of behavior, differing from the near left only in goal. Beyond them, on the far right, you find the same behavior as the far left - again really differing only in ultimate goals and only slightly in methodology.
For someone who sits a little right of center - its frightening no matter which direction I look.
That's an opinion - not a fact of nature or law. I snipped the remainder of your reply but will say this - it's nothing but a demonstration of your inability to differentiate between fact and opinion and of your belief that threats are a reasonable substitute for reasoned discourse.