The algae Botryococcus braunii can create significant amount of chemicals with similar usefulness. Algae is fast-growing, and are able to capture more light than vascular plants and comparatively 'mega' fauna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botryococcus_braunii
Not to say there aren't drawbacks. Biggest drawback is that other species of algae, i.e. weeds, start growing in an open-air algae farm. Closed systems, akin to a greenhouse, are less vulnerable but more expensive.
Not to disregard this fungal discovery with a wave of the hand. The more tools at hand, the better, right?
..but we need to be like an insect with thousands of eyes, spaced far enough apart. These should be far enough from earth to be able to use interferometry or even triangulation to add data and knowledge about a particular object. It is only with such a system of such sensitivity, precision, and accuracy that we will have the confidence needed to send probes and manned craft beyond this solar system.
Why is it that as soon as someone is knighted they get stupid? TBL needs to understand that there are somethings which are appropriate to think of as a technological challenge, and some that are not. This is one of the "NOT"s.
The idea that someone, never mind someone so respected, would even THINK of trying to do this is frightening. Berners-Lee now goes onto my list of dangerous nut-cases. He'd better not show up for a speech at my University.
What the poor countries really need is less population. The least painful way to do this is birth control. Or, the rich countries of the world could just stay out of the way and let nature regulate the population by the means of starvation, disease, and warfare.
Outlaw steel in construction? You are insane. Steel is a great material. Industrial civilization is built on steel. If you want to go back to wattle and daub huts go right ahead, but if you try to make me or my society do so, we will kill you with swift bolts of steel.
It's just someone trying to latch on to the inevitable 9/11 WtC links to promote their research. These facts about Iron/Steel have been known for some time. Materials research,and metallurgy, have been the subject of much research for well over a hundred years.
Carbon nanotubes and having amazing properties under tension, but aren't so great under compression. More simply put, carbon nanotubes are really strong string. But try as you might, you cannot build a building or reactor completely of tension materials (without changing the relative pressure presented by that which is to be contained. I.e, a balloon is a tension structure, but you have to fill it with pressurized air or water in order to give it structure). But tension can be used to distribute the load more favorably into compression structures. Think of the cables on a suspension bridge.
I am not an expert in materials science, nor an architect nor structural engineer nor metallurgist. Caveat Lector.
The Rats of NIMH, or the mice of HACNS1? I wonder if we gave rats opposable thumbs and perhaps some FOXP2 work...and voila! a new labor force for working in those jobs that "Americans don't want to do".
Answering a bunch of things in one post. Firstly, there seems to be some people on slashdot who think that x86 is required in order to be a 'usable' platform. Well, it isn't so. Makromedia flash may or may not be available for MIPS, but that doesn't mean that users will not be able to use 'the web': because of limited bandwidth and censorship, much of the 'target demographic' for this computer won't be needed such functionality anyhow. But I believe a few things: 1) it behooves Macromedia to release players for a variety of architecture, lest they be left behind. 2) proves that open-source, and its ability to be compiled for a variety of architectures, has much value. 3) Perhaps we need an INSTRUCTION SET which is completely unencumbered by "intellectual property". I guess virtual machines can handle the translation, and later be put into silicon - remind you of Java? Hrm.
China has a lot of 'economic frontiers' left. A great portion of the country is still very primitive, left struggling in the remains of Maoism. There may be an effort in this country to refocus its efforts on internal development, and this PC might be a step towards it. I don't think it's quite there, though, as there seems to be a concentration on western (European/Roman/English) keyboards and displays. I am not saying that I want Red China to win (I actually want them to lose) but I am trying to foresee what's coming.
Lastly, I am not sure how much further the keyboard can shrink and still be practical. Sure, for kids it can be smaller, but even kids grow - and hence their fingers grow too large for the keyboard, and then the mini-laptop they were using starts causing damage to their fingers. That's no way to be - we need full sized keyboards, even in undeveloped countries, otherwise it will be only the midgets which will be able to type effectively.
I was trying to avoid the fray, but I can't, I'll just have to jump in. You see, I am American, and one of the reasons why Europeans love to bring up Bush/Cheney and all the rest is because it will get a rise out of us. Europeans are meek, it seems, when it comes to criticizing their own politicians in front of Americans, but not vis-versa.
One of the reasons, in my opinion, that many Europeans show contempt for America is the crass poor cowboys have grown up to be a real power in just a few years after Europe's self destruction in two world wars. The EU is an attempt to gather all of Europe together and compete against the US. So far it is working, but just barely. It's not working because of European brilliance but because of American stupidity. Whether the EU can continue to make progress is another question entirely. I think it's reached its limits for now, and is well-positioned to overcome the US if the US continues to screw up, and the EU overcomes its energy problem (Russia).
It would be an interesting survey, to see how European employers rank American universities. One of the reasons I sneaked in the back door (night school) of one of those 'big name' universities is that I want to be able to work abroad and have my degree mean something. There are a lot of good schools that just aren't well known even in the US, never mind abroad. Who in Europe has ever heard of Union College? Have they heard of RPI (Rensselaer)? Dartmouth? Harvard? Roughly in that order, of obscure to overrated, is how I view those universities.
I am older, and self-taught. I know I can do the jobs I apply for but it is often not easy to convince employers of this when I don't have the college degree. Going back to school and getting it will open some doors for me (I hope).
WiFi falls back to lower data rates when signal conditions force them to. Beacons are sent at the lowest data rate, 1 mbps. If access points refused to lower their data rate beyond some threshold, then more bandwidth becomes available on a given channel. The noise floor will also drop. Of course, some users will not be able to use the network because they can't connect at a higher data rate, even with the drop in noise floor. But many of these will be outliers, or people who aren't actually on campus but using campus networks. Too bad for them, assist legitimate users in upgrading equipment.
If you didn't have the restrictions of backwards compatibility, you could drop support for 802.11b and DSSS completely, and have an 802.11g network. DSSS is less efficient than OFDM when in close proximity. Again, distant users are at a disadvantage.
If you've ever sniffed a large wifi network you'll see alot of junk traffic, mostly from cisco and microsoft protocols which were meant for a wired environment where bandwidth is cheap. Filtering these at the AP can help the bandwidth problem.
OK, there's my consulting for today. My bill is in the mail.
2.4 Ghz is full. 5 Ghz is not so good for many users. It would have been great is some of that recently freed up TV spectrum was made available for wifi.
My guess is that within a couple of years there will be 'grey-market' wifi devices that operate in other bands, illegal to use in the US and many other countries but used nonetheless, much as extended-range cordless phones and the CBs of old.
Regulators would be wise to head off the problem by freeing up some spectrum for additional wifi bands right now.
Another method would be to use the interstices of channels in existing, older services for a collection of narrow band digital channels. The 800mhz AMPS and 900 mhz GSM cellular bands might be good candidates for this. The problem is that cell phones using these bands may cause interference in when in close proximity to devices using these new wifi bands.
Humanity is only in the beginning stages of being able to detect planet in other solar systems. I have confidence that further development and perfection of systems for astronomy of planets.
Someone needs to brush up on what the Ivy League is. Also, this is just links to books - so f'ing what. How much of a bribe does it take to get your stupid, get-rich-quick site on slashdot?
The great thing is, that the stupid, the self destructive the "darwin award winners" will be filtered out. But what about that fertility? In a 1000 year life, a woman is fertile for a short period of time, a man potent for just a bit longer. We can freeze sperm and eggs but what about the womb? Are we going to end up like northern europe, with a diminishing population of the upper, intelligent, and educated classes? I recall some sci-fi story wherein eternal natural life was discovered but at the cost of fertility, and then the last man and woman on the planet tried to mate to save the human race, and failed. I am all for eugenics, to some extent (ooh I can anticipate the flames) but at what point is the cut-off?
Aubrey: what affect will longevity have on fertility and the future of the human race?
Ignoring the author's obvious ignorance (you can't power a vehicle on crude oil), there already exist microbes which are unpatented, which will do the job. An algae by the name of Botryococcus braunii (see the wikipedia article) can produce enormous quantities of an oil which can be transformed ('cracked', just like crude oil) into the fuels we're all used to, such as kerosene, octane (gasoline/petrol), diesel, etc.
The real problem is the gold-rush mentality of the genetic engineers to provide the single,patented organism which will fix all of our problems forever, making them the richest people of all time. It's not going to happen folks. The technology is incrementally complex - meaning there is no 'Eureka' moment - and that moderate amounts of money can be made by those who are willing and able to invest in incremental advancements in efficiency.
I am considering leaving my lifetime vocation of computers and electronics for a career in microbiologic fuel sources. Who cares to join me?
Sorry for not being funny, but I couldn't find an intelligent comment to attach this to, so it goes at at top level.
basically, my opinion is that it is within our reach to create a number of large telescopes that will exist roughly within the solar system, though possibly above and below the solar plane. These telescopes will be primarily automated, though a human team may need to be maintained ex-earth to do repairs and upgrades. All of these telescopes will be controlled by, and report to, all of the next generation super computers this race seems to be so good at creating (as opposed to high speed transportation systems). the ultimate goal is to be able to see the planets directly, and to observe and estimate the possibility for life as we know it (roughly). Where life does not exist, we seed it, though it may take generations to arrive, and thrive. This is our goal as a race, is to spread terran life as far as it can be spread. this is why the plants put up with us. It is our manifest destiny.
Certainly, it takes less energy to change the velocity of a small vehicle....pretty simply physics here. But there's more more involved. A smaller vehicle also requires much less kinetic energy to be transformed when deceleration is called for. For many years, this kinetic energy has been wasted as it is turned into heat by brakes. Now we have competing systems of deceleration that transform the kinetic energy - either into other kinetic energy in the use of a flywheel, or electric energy, or even pneumatic or hydraulic energy. The problem becomes the ability to transform this energy very quickly and efficiently in large amounts. But why is this so important?
Much of acceleration need is due to the competitive driving needed in congested highway or city traffic, and deceleration need as well. If we can improve upon traffic control so as to require less acceleration and deceleration, then efficiency is improved. Road-trains are one method, but they have some serious design flaws to overcome before they are practical. Much closer to being practical is the computer controlled autonomous vehicle, such as those being contestants in the DARPA challenge. Once computer controlled driving becomes ubiquitous, automated 'good manners' can be algorithmically enforced. This will result in less stress, faster travel, greater fuel efficiency, and safer roads. I believe that auto-mation is deserving of much research funds, and not just by auto makers but by national automotive research institutes. More money to DARPA!
Onto safety of small vehicles: There has been much improvement in the passenger safety over the past forty years. Most of this comes from mechanical integrity of the vehicle in an accident in favor of saving the passenger. What I mean is, cars crumble apart when the collide these days, as opposed to bouncing off of each other like billiard balls and throwing the passengers around inside and outside of the car, as they would do in the 60s and before. This is good for human safety (less injuries and deaths) and the auto industry (more cars are destroyed in accidents, meaning more cars must be sold). I only expect this trend to continue, especially as the demand for small, light cars continues. special materials, probably some carbon composites, will absorb all of the kinetic energy of a collision and release that energy by crumbling, or even turning to dust. When considering safety from this point of view, flywheels are very dangerous unless they can also dissemble to dust as need be to protect the passenger from their dangerous kinetic energy. The same can be said of any system of energy storage, be it fuel or kinetic conversion (regenerative braking...er, breaking). Can we develop gelled automotive fuels, or at least less volatile ones, so explosion and fire risk is less?
The mantra of modern society is that the life of the individual is tantamount. Any automotive design which fails to take notice of this is on the road to ruin, no pun intended.
One can philsophise over how remarkably poor the recent generation of Chinese cars faired in European crash tests. I wonder if the nascent cars from India (Tata Nano, and others) will do in similar tests.
Back to efficient 'deceleration' or 'regenerative braking' systems: I think there is great promise in electrical systems such as supercapacitors, particularly in the field of aerogel materials. I also suspect that piezoelectric effects may be able to transform mechanical energy to electrical the fastest.
Now, who wants to start a car company with me? Got any capital?
While this sounds like a great idea, I want more information before I accept their "Eureka!". How much weight is actually saved? What percentage of this 'lunar concrete' will be lunar dust, and how much of it will be materials brought up from space?
How is it going to be aluminum plated? To use the minimal amount of aluminum here on earth, we would use electroplating - which requires that the entire dish be put in an electroplating tank - and that's going to be one big tank! I am not so sure that you can get the smooth finish needed with any sort of 'paint'. But maybe there's something I'm missing, and that a telescope of that size need not be built to the same stringent tolerances as the Hubble.
Next, it seems as though this is being built without any way to 'aim' it. This limits its utility, as we can only look at what the moon is pointing the dish at. Yes, sure, we can built several, that's nice. But what about when the telescope is brought into focus of an intensely bright object, such as the sun? I guess whatever is at the focus of the dish will have to be moved in order to not be 'fried'.
Any what about lunar dust and micro (or macro) meteorites?
Perhaps I ought to see how earth observatories like araciebo work.
While have a tool like this will do wonders for space exploration, and eventual colonization, It's only the first step of the observing network we need, which will be tens or even hundreds of telescopes all over the solar system, which can work in concern to achieve very high resolution and accuracy. This is the kind of data we will need to plan missions, to either find intelligent life (which is doubtful) or to colonize other star systems (which is far more probable).
Slashdot Mirror
The algae Botryococcus braunii can create significant amount of chemicals with similar usefulness. Algae is fast-growing, and are able to capture more light than vascular plants and comparatively 'mega' fauna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botryococcus_braunii
Not to say there aren't drawbacks. Biggest drawback is that other species of algae, i.e. weeds, start growing in an open-air algae farm. Closed systems, akin to a greenhouse, are less vulnerable but more expensive.
Not to disregard this fungal discovery with a wave of the hand. The more tools at hand, the better, right?
Everyone make sure to call your local radio station at time of re-entry and request Devo's 'space junk'.
..but we need to be like an insect with thousands of eyes, spaced far enough apart. These should be far enough from earth to be able to use interferometry or even triangulation to add data and knowledge about a particular object. It is only with such a system of such sensitivity, precision, and accuracy that we will have the confidence needed to send probes and manned craft beyond this solar system.
This looks like a replay of the naptha DoS from late 2000.
Why is it that as soon as someone is knighted they get stupid? TBL needs to understand that there are somethings which are appropriate to think of as a technological challenge, and some that are not. This is one of the "NOT"s.
The idea that someone, never mind someone so respected, would even THINK of trying to do this is frightening. Berners-Lee now goes onto my list of dangerous nut-cases. He'd better not show up for a speech at my University.
Wow...I got modded 'troll'. I guess it's not politically correct. Ha ha ha.
What the poor countries really need is less population. The least painful way to do this is birth control. Or, the rich countries of the world could just stay out of the way and let nature regulate the population by the means of starvation, disease, and warfare.
Outlaw steel in construction? You are insane. Steel is a great material. Industrial civilization is built on steel. If you want to go back to wattle and daub huts go right ahead, but if you try to make me or my society do so, we will kill you with swift bolts of steel.
It's just someone trying to latch on to the inevitable 9/11 WtC links to promote their research. These facts about Iron/Steel have been known for some time. Materials research,and metallurgy, have been the subject of much research for well over a hundred years.
Carbon nanotubes and having amazing properties under tension, but aren't so great under compression. More simply put, carbon nanotubes are really strong string. But try as you might, you cannot build a building or reactor completely of tension materials (without changing the relative pressure presented by that which is to be contained. I.e, a balloon is a tension structure, but you have to fill it with pressurized air or water in order to give it structure). But tension can be used to distribute the load more favorably into compression structures. Think of the cables on a suspension bridge.
I am not an expert in materials science, nor an architect nor structural engineer nor metallurgist. Caveat Lector.
The Rats of NIMH, or the mice of HACNS1? I wonder if we gave rats opposable thumbs and perhaps some FOXP2 work...and voila! a new labor force for working in those jobs that "Americans don't want to do".
Answering a bunch of things in one post. Firstly, there seems to be some people on slashdot who think that x86 is required in order to be a 'usable' platform. Well, it isn't so. Makromedia flash may or may not be available for MIPS, but that doesn't mean that users will not be able to use 'the web': because of limited bandwidth and censorship, much of the 'target demographic' for this computer won't be needed such functionality anyhow. But I believe a few things: 1) it behooves Macromedia to release players for a variety of architecture, lest they be left behind. 2) proves that open-source, and its ability to be compiled for a variety of architectures, has much value. 3) Perhaps we need an INSTRUCTION SET which is completely unencumbered by "intellectual property". I guess virtual machines can handle the translation, and later be put into silicon - remind you of Java? Hrm.
China has a lot of 'economic frontiers' left. A great portion of the country is still very primitive, left struggling in the remains of Maoism. There may be an effort in this country to refocus its efforts on internal development, and this PC might be a step towards it. I don't think it's quite there, though, as there seems to be a concentration on western (European/Roman/English) keyboards and displays. I am not saying that I want Red China to win (I actually want them to lose) but I am trying to foresee what's coming.
Lastly, I am not sure how much further the keyboard can shrink and still be practical. Sure, for kids it can be smaller, but even kids grow - and hence their fingers grow too large for the keyboard, and then the mini-laptop they were using starts causing damage to their fingers. That's no way to be - we need full sized keyboards, even in undeveloped countries, otherwise it will be only the midgets which will be able to type effectively.
I was trying to avoid the fray, but I can't, I'll just have to jump in. You see, I am American, and one of the reasons why Europeans love to bring up Bush/Cheney and all the rest is because it will get a rise out of us. Europeans are meek, it seems, when it comes to criticizing their own politicians in front of Americans, but not vis-versa.
One of the reasons, in my opinion, that many Europeans show contempt for America is the crass poor cowboys have grown up to be a real power in just a few years after Europe's self destruction in two world wars. The EU is an attempt to gather all of Europe together and compete against the US. So far it is working, but just barely. It's not working because of European brilliance but because of American stupidity. Whether the EU can continue to make progress is another question entirely. I think it's reached its limits for now, and is well-positioned to overcome the US if the US continues to screw up, and the EU overcomes its energy problem (Russia).
It would be an interesting survey, to see how European employers rank American universities. One of the reasons I sneaked in the back door (night school) of one of those 'big name' universities is that I want to be able to work abroad and have my degree mean something. There are a lot of good schools that just aren't well known even in the US, never mind abroad. Who in Europe has ever heard of Union College? Have they heard of RPI (Rensselaer)? Dartmouth? Harvard? Roughly in that order, of obscure to overrated, is how I view those universities.
I am older, and self-taught. I know I can do the jobs I apply for but it is often not easy to convince employers of this when I don't have the college degree. Going back to school and getting it will open some doors for me (I hope).
WiFi falls back to lower data rates when signal conditions force them to. Beacons are sent at the lowest data rate, 1 mbps. If access points refused to lower their data rate beyond some threshold, then more bandwidth becomes available on a given channel. The noise floor will also drop. Of course, some users will not be able to use the network because they can't connect at a higher data rate, even with the drop in noise floor. But many of these will be outliers, or people who aren't actually on campus but using campus networks. Too bad for them, assist legitimate users in upgrading equipment.
If you didn't have the restrictions of backwards compatibility, you could drop support for 802.11b and DSSS completely, and have an 802.11g network. DSSS is less efficient than OFDM when in close proximity. Again, distant users are at a disadvantage.
If you've ever sniffed a large wifi network you'll see alot of junk traffic, mostly from cisco and microsoft protocols which were meant for a wired environment where bandwidth is cheap. Filtering these at the AP can help the bandwidth problem.
OK, there's my consulting for today. My bill is in the mail.
When you say frequency, I believe you mean spectrum, or bandwidth.
2.4 Ghz is full. 5 Ghz is not so good for many users. It would have been great is some of that recently freed up TV spectrum was made available for wifi.
My guess is that within a couple of years there will be 'grey-market' wifi devices that operate in other bands, illegal to use in the US and many other countries but used nonetheless, much as extended-range cordless phones and the CBs of old.
Regulators would be wise to head off the problem by freeing up some spectrum for additional wifi bands right now.
Another method would be to use the interstices of channels in existing, older services for a collection of narrow band digital channels. The 800mhz AMPS and 900 mhz GSM cellular bands might be good candidates for this. The problem is that cell phones using these bands may cause interference in when in close proximity to devices using these new wifi bands.
Humanity is only in the beginning stages of being able to detect planet in other solar systems. I have confidence that further development and perfection of systems for astronomy of planets.
Someone needs to brush up on what the Ivy League is. Also, this is just links to books - so f'ing what. How much of a bribe does it take to get your stupid, get-rich-quick site on slashdot?
I wholeheartedly agree. Luckily, many of these people "don't believe in guns", and will be killed by those who do.
The great thing is, that the stupid, the self destructive the "darwin award winners" will be filtered out. But what about that fertility? In a 1000 year life, a woman is fertile for a short period of time, a man potent for just a bit longer. We can freeze sperm and eggs but what about the womb? Are we going to end up like northern europe, with a diminishing population of the upper, intelligent, and educated classes? I recall some sci-fi story wherein eternal natural life was discovered but at the cost of fertility, and then the last man and woman on the planet tried to mate to save the human race, and failed. I am all for eugenics, to some extent (ooh I can anticipate the flames) but at what point is the cut-off?
Aubrey: what affect will longevity have on fertility and the future of the human race?
Not enough ram or flash to do anything interesting. I like the old WGT634U: 8mb flash, 32mb ram.
Ignoring the author's obvious ignorance (you can't power a vehicle on crude oil), there already exist microbes which are unpatented, which will do the job. An algae by the name of Botryococcus braunii (see the wikipedia article) can produce enormous quantities of an oil which can be transformed ('cracked', just like crude oil) into the fuels we're all used to, such as kerosene, octane (gasoline/petrol), diesel, etc.
The real problem is the gold-rush mentality of the genetic engineers to provide the single,patented organism which will fix all of our problems forever, making them the richest people of all time. It's not going to happen folks. The technology is incrementally complex - meaning there is no 'Eureka' moment - and that moderate amounts of money can be made by those who are willing and able to invest in incremental advancements in efficiency.
I am considering leaving my lifetime vocation of computers and electronics for a career in microbiologic fuel sources. Who cares to join me?
Sorry for not being funny, but I couldn't find an intelligent comment to attach this to, so it goes at at top level.
basically, my opinion is that it is within our reach to create a number of large telescopes that will exist roughly within the solar system, though possibly above and below the solar plane. These telescopes will be primarily automated, though a human team may need to be maintained ex-earth to do repairs and upgrades. All of these telescopes will be controlled by, and report to, all of the next generation super computers this race seems to be so good at creating (as opposed to high speed transportation systems). the ultimate goal is to be able to see the planets directly, and to observe and estimate the possibility for life as we know it (roughly). Where life does not exist, we seed it, though it may take generations to arrive, and thrive. This is our goal as a race, is to spread terran life as far as it can be spread. this is why the plants put up with us. It is our manifest destiny.
Certainly, it takes less energy to change the velocity of a small vehicle....pretty simply physics here. But there's more more involved. A smaller vehicle also requires much less kinetic energy to be transformed when deceleration is called for. For many years, this kinetic energy has been wasted as it is turned into heat by brakes. Now we have competing systems of deceleration that transform the kinetic energy - either into other kinetic energy in the use of a flywheel, or electric energy, or even pneumatic or hydraulic energy. The problem becomes the ability to transform this energy very quickly and efficiently in large amounts. But why is this so important?
Much of acceleration need is due to the competitive driving needed in congested highway or city traffic, and deceleration need as well. If we can improve upon traffic control so as to require less acceleration and deceleration, then efficiency is improved. Road-trains are one method, but they have some serious design flaws to overcome before they are practical. Much closer to being practical is the computer controlled autonomous vehicle, such as those being contestants in the DARPA challenge. Once computer controlled driving becomes ubiquitous, automated 'good manners' can be algorithmically enforced. This will result in less stress, faster travel, greater fuel efficiency, and safer roads. I believe that auto-mation is deserving of much research funds, and not just by auto makers but by national automotive research institutes. More money to DARPA!
Onto safety of small vehicles: There has been much improvement in the passenger safety over the past forty years. Most of this comes from mechanical integrity of the vehicle in an accident in favor of saving the passenger. What I mean is, cars crumble apart when the collide these days, as opposed to bouncing off of each other like billiard balls and throwing the passengers around inside and outside of the car, as they would do in the 60s and before. This is good for human safety (less injuries and deaths) and the auto industry (more cars are destroyed in accidents, meaning more cars must be sold). I only expect this trend to continue, especially as the demand for small, light cars continues. special materials, probably some carbon composites, will absorb all of the kinetic energy of a collision and release that energy by crumbling, or even turning to dust. When considering safety from this point of view, flywheels are very dangerous unless they can also dissemble to dust as need be to protect the passenger from their dangerous kinetic energy. The same can be said of any system of energy storage, be it fuel or kinetic conversion (regenerative braking...er, breaking). Can we develop gelled automotive fuels, or at least less volatile ones, so explosion and fire risk is less?
The mantra of modern society is that the life of the individual is tantamount. Any automotive design which fails to take notice of this is on the road to ruin, no pun intended.
One can philsophise over how remarkably poor the recent generation of Chinese cars faired in European crash tests. I wonder if the nascent cars from India (Tata Nano, and others) will do in similar tests.
Back to efficient 'deceleration' or 'regenerative braking' systems: I think there is great promise in electrical systems such as supercapacitors, particularly in the field of aerogel materials. I also suspect that piezoelectric effects may be able to transform mechanical energy to electrical the fastest.
Now, who wants to start a car company with me? Got any capital?
While this sounds like a great idea, I want more information before I accept their "Eureka!". How much weight is actually saved? What percentage of this 'lunar concrete' will be lunar dust, and how much of it will be materials brought up from space?
How is it going to be aluminum plated? To use the minimal amount of aluminum here on earth, we would use electroplating - which requires that the entire dish be put in an electroplating tank - and that's going to be one big tank! I am not so sure that you can get the smooth finish needed with any sort of 'paint'. But maybe there's something I'm missing, and that a telescope of that size need not be built to the same stringent tolerances as the Hubble.
Next, it seems as though this is being built without any way to 'aim' it. This limits its utility, as we can only look at what the moon is pointing the dish at. Yes, sure, we can built several, that's nice. But what about when the telescope is brought into focus of an intensely bright object, such as the sun? I guess whatever is at the focus of the dish will have to be moved in order to not be 'fried'.
Any what about lunar dust and micro (or macro) meteorites?
Perhaps I ought to see how earth observatories like araciebo work.
While have a tool like this will do wonders for space exploration, and eventual colonization, It's only the first step of the observing network we need, which will be tens or even hundreds of telescopes all over the solar system, which can work in concern to achieve very high resolution and accuracy. This is the kind of data we will need to plan missions, to either find intelligent life (which is doubtful) or to colonize other star systems (which is far more probable).