But a pen isn't as inflamable as a pencil in an oxygen-rich spacecraft atmosphere. And a pen dosn't shed conductive carbon particles into your on-board electronics either. Which would you rather use (assuming that somebody else is picking up the tab)?
Yes, but what do you do if the only place you can go for the service is 2000 miles away, and it will take a 18 hour drive to get there, and all the while rabid monkeys are hammering on the windscreen, pissing in the gas tank and trying to slash the tires?
Or like valuing every house in a street based on the price of the one sold last week? Or the price of a stock based on the market value of the 'few' that were sold on a particular day? What would the houses or the shares be worth if everybody tried to sell at once? Most of the wealth (and growth) in a ecomony is based on the fact that only a very small few individuals want to realise the profit at the same time. The rest of us just think we are rich.
If the cost of spaceflight became too cheap, and the technology becomes 'off-the-shelf', then everybody and anybody would be raining chunks of titanium down on the heads of the people that you don't like. Perhaps this is why we don't have cheap access to space, and space technology is, for the most part, tied up in massive government beuraracies? In fact, in my opinion, if air travel was just developed today, in 2004, I can guarantee you that there would never be no 747s, or even Single seater cesanas for public transport. Only the military would have the tech, and all military planes would cost the same as a Stealth bomber.
And the good news is, that by the time the US contracters and NASA have sucked the taxpayers dry to finally get there, the astronauts will be able to nip around the corner for a Chinese Takeaway.
Well, right now we have the "technical expertise" to clean up most of the mess that we have lying around down here, but that dosn't mean that we are willing to pay the cost do do just that. Do you really think that our capitalist human nature will be any different in a few hundred years?
Sprit has dug a trench,,,
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
The sprit rover has now also dug a trench in "Laguna Hollow"
Re:Resolving Power?
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The published images from the microscopic imager are about 3cm accross. (or about an inch and a quarter for the metrically challanged)
The hubble telescope did not require the shuttle for launch, only for the on-orbit servicing.
The telescope could have been designed without all the extra doors and panels and handholds needed for on-orbit servicing, which would have saved at least a hundred milion $. Not to mention astronaut training costs.
It could then have been launched on a titan-4 class rocket which lifts 20ton to low earth orbit for $200m, less than half the price of a shuttle launch. (i.e the same way the keyhole spy sats are sent up, which are more or less the same size as hubble, except they point down instead of up!)
Now, I agree that there would still have been the mirror problem, and the gradual failures of various equipment on board. BUT, for the cost of each of the hubble servicing missions, they could have build and launched a whole new Hubble telescope every 2 or three years.
So, if they planned for that up-front, they could have mass-produced 5 or 6 units, (holding off on the camera designs to allow for tech improvments over the years), for probably a few hundred millon a pop. And also blocked booked a titan launch every 2 or 3 years. That would also kept the airforce/nsa/cia happy since they have to subsidise the rocket companies to keep their production lines going in any case.
This approach would have been much cheaper, and would also mean that there would probably be 2 or even 3 hubble class telescopes operating simultaniously.
And, they could have built in a deorbit engine, so the 20t hunk of metal could be safely dumped in the pacific at the end of its life.
But of course, this could never happen, since one of the real purposes of the project was just to give the shuttle something to do in space in order to justify is 3.5-4 billion $ per year price tag.
But, at least it gave NASA some good PR for repairing it (and I do recognise the human and technologoical achievment of that)
But was it worth the cost (and risk) of all those extra shuttle missions?
It just goes to show, that the only really awsome US achievement(s) in manned space flight/science over the last 30 years, was repairing an unmanned space probe.
The Galileo mission design goes back a long way: The official start of the project was in October 1977, with the name being changed to Galileo in February 1978. Fancy stuff like space-rated solid state memories didn't exist back then, and in any case the original plan was to transmit most of the science data in real-time. The recorder was really intended as a back-up to store the atmospheric probe data in case there was a problem. (good job too, since the high-gain antenna didn't open as planned)
This won't catch on. Rental companies have a significant revenue stream from people returning stuff late. (Blockbuster - 15-20%) If the stuff is disposable, then they can't charge you for not returning it. They mightn't care about the enviornment, but they do care about their shareholders.
The disk isn't that vunerable, mainly due to three reasons: 1. Its in a fairly clean orbit, most of the manmade space junk is in low orbits. 2. The dish is made up of a light mesh, so its mostly 'empty space', the actual 'cross section target area' is relativly small. 3. At the frequencies that this disk is listening, you don't need a solid dish, so if a passing asteroid punches a 10 foot hole through it, it will still work. (although your signal strength and 'aiming sharpness' will be slightly degraded).
The Japenese Halca satellite, launched in 1997 had an 8 meter deployable dish, and it was supposed to be superceeded by something bigger (but funding got a bit tight of course) The "Trumpet" SigInt (Signals Intellegence) satellites, of which the NSA has launched 4 or so, have an absolutly HUGE dish. See Pic here Size is said to be in the region of 150-200 meters in diameter, in a very high orbit (either Moylina, or Geosync) (Of course, it needs to be that size to pick up your keystrokes and monitor radiation from orbit.)
There has even been serious military planning for concrete submarines. Since concrete is very strong under pressure, such subs can sink to enormous depths and lurk on the sea bottom, looking like a rock to enemy sonar. Steel subs can only go down about half a mile.
The reason for the 20 ton mass requirement is due to the fact that the train track will be expected to 'build itself'. As new sections of the truss are brought up in the shuttle payload bay (each massing about 14,000 kg), they need to be attached to the ends of the truss already in place. The shuttle robot arm won't be able to reach that far out, so the station's robot arm (with one end on the 'train') will chug out along the rails on top of the truss, then lock itself down, grab the payload from the shuttle, and swing it accros and attach it onto the end of the truss. Repeat eight times (with eight shuttle flights, and lots of spanner weilding astronouts to bolt it together), and the truss is completed by 2004 or so. Also, a lot of very heavy equipment is mounted in/on the truss (things like storage batteries for example), and these need to be replaced every so often, so the train will be used for that also. Regarding the water, the US considers it a waste product, and actually dumps quite a lot of it from the US lab on the station. (quite a lot of it builds as condensation from the people on board, several liters per person per day). The Russians on the other hand, consider it a resource, and pump the 'waste' water from their AirConditioner into a electrolosis unit which electrically splits off the oxygen for breathing purposes. In any case the condensed water would not be safe for drinking, but fresh drinking water is supplied by the shuttle, as a by-product of the shuttle fuel cells. (Cyrogenic H2 + 02 = lots of electricty + pure water) The shuttle actually produces a *lot* of water, but dosn't really carry much into orbit to start with!
Slashdot Mirror
But a pen isn't as inflamable as a pencil in an oxygen-rich spacecraft atmosphere.
And a pen dosn't shed conductive carbon particles into your on-board electronics either.
Which would you rather use (assuming that somebody else is picking up the tab)?
When NASA tried that, the rover's filesystem crashed, and they had to upload a patch......
You had better get the flux capactor upgrade first........
Yes, but what do you do if the only place you can go for the service is 2000 miles away, and it will take a 18 hour drive to get there, and all the while rabid monkeys are hammering on the windscreen, pissing in the gas tank and trying to slash the tires?
Or like valuing every house in a street based on the price of the one sold last week?
Or the price of a stock based on the market value of the 'few' that were sold on a particular day?
What would the houses or the shares be worth if everybody tried to sell at once?
Most of the wealth (and growth) in a ecomony is based on the fact that only a very small few individuals want to realise the profit at the same time. The rest of us just think we are rich.
If the cost of spaceflight became too cheap, and the technology becomes 'off-the-shelf', then everybody and anybody would be raining chunks of titanium down on the heads of the people that you don't like.
Perhaps this is why we don't have cheap access to space, and space technology is, for the most part, tied up in massive government beuraracies?
In fact, in my opinion, if air travel was just developed today, in 2004, I can guarantee you that there would never be no 747s, or even Single seater cesanas for public transport. Only the military would have the tech, and all military planes would cost the same as a Stealth bomber.
The high cost of space is protecting you.
And several gallons of holy water.....
And the good news is, that by the time the US contracters and NASA have sucked the taxpayers dry to finally get there, the astronauts will be able to nip around the corner for a Chinese Takeaway.
Well, right now we have the "technical expertise" to clean up most of the mess that we have lying around down here, but that dosn't mean that we are willing to pay the cost do do just that.
Do you really think that our capitalist human nature will be any different in a few hundred years?
The sprit rover has now also dug a trench in "Laguna Hollow"
The published images from the microscopic imager are about 3cm accross.
(or about an inch and a quarter for the metrically challanged)
The hubble telescope did not require the shuttle for launch, only for the on-orbit servicing.
The telescope could have been designed without all the extra doors and panels and handholds needed for on-orbit servicing, which would have saved at least a hundred milion $.
Not to mention astronaut training costs.
It could then have been launched on a titan-4 class rocket which lifts 20ton to low earth orbit for $200m, less than half the price of a shuttle launch. (i.e the same way the keyhole spy sats are sent up, which are more or less the same size as hubble, except they point down instead of up!)
Now, I agree that there would still have been the mirror problem, and the gradual failures of various equipment on board. BUT, for the cost of each of the hubble servicing missions, they could have build and launched a whole new Hubble telescope every 2 or three years.
So, if they planned for that up-front, they could have mass-produced 5 or 6 units, (holding off on the camera designs to allow for tech improvments over the years), for probably a few hundred millon a pop.
And also blocked booked a titan launch every 2 or 3 years. That would also kept the airforce/nsa/cia happy since they have to subsidise the rocket companies to keep their production lines going in any case.
This approach would have been much cheaper, and would also mean that there would probably be 2 or even 3 hubble class telescopes operating simultaniously.
And, they could have built in a deorbit engine, so the 20t hunk of metal could be safely dumped in the pacific at the end of its life.
But of course, this could never happen, since one of the real purposes of the project was just to give the shuttle something to do in space in order to justify is 3.5-4 billion $ per year price tag.
But, at least it gave NASA some good PR for repairing it (and I do recognise the human and technologoical achievment of that)
But was it worth the cost (and risk) of all those extra shuttle missions?
It just goes to show, that the only really awsome US achievement(s) in manned space flight/science over the last 30 years, was repairing an unmanned space probe.
Most expensive repair call out in history.
1) Send spacecraft to mood using efficient ion propulsion.
2) ????
3) Profit!
Hey, I've got forearms, and two kidneys!
Go on, mod me down, I'm not afraid!
The Galileo mission design goes back a long way: The official start of the project was in October 1977, with the name being changed to Galileo in February 1978.
Fancy stuff like space-rated solid state memories didn't exist back then, and in any case the original plan was to transmit most of the science data in real-time. The recorder was really intended as a back-up to store the atmospheric probe data in case there was a problem. (good job too, since the high-gain antenna didn't open as planned)
This won't catch on. Rental companies have a significant revenue stream from people returning stuff late. (Blockbuster - 15-20%) If the stuff is disposable, then they can't charge you for not returning it. They mightn't care about the enviornment, but they do care about their shareholders.
They already do just that. See this article.
AMD Duron 1.1GHz, $45
AMD Duron 1.2GHz, $53
AMD Duron 1.3GHz, $66
AMD Athlon XP1700+, $99
AMD Athlon XP1800+, $110
AMD Athlon XP1900+, $137
AMD Athlon XP2000+, $167
AMD Athlon XP2200+ $241
Next week Intel is expected to release a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 "Celeron" at around $103.
519 hits, and iPackedUp
Do Not Surrender to the lameness filter!
Even though this car produces no pollution, what about the two SUVs and a van carrying replacement parts and tools accompanying it?
The disk isn't that vunerable, mainly due to three reasons:
1. Its in a fairly clean orbit, most of the manmade space junk is in low orbits.
2. The dish is made up of a light mesh, so its mostly 'empty space', the actual 'cross section target area' is relativly small.
3. At the frequencies that this disk is listening, you don't need a solid dish, so if a passing asteroid punches a 10 foot hole through it, it will still work. (although your signal strength and 'aiming sharpness' will be slightly degraded).
The Japenese Halca satellite, launched in 1997 had an 8 meter deployable dish, and it was supposed to be superceeded by something bigger (but funding got a bit tight of course)
The "Trumpet" SigInt (Signals Intellegence) satellites, of which the NSA has launched 4 or so, have an absolutly HUGE dish. See Pic here Size is said to be in the region of 150-200 meters in diameter, in a very high orbit (either Moylina, or Geosync)
(Of course, it needs to be that size to pick up your keystrokes and monitor radiation from orbit.)
Karma cap reached, so mod somebody else up.
There has even been serious military planning for concrete submarines. Since concrete is very strong under pressure, such subs can sink to enormous depths and lurk on the sea bottom, looking like a rock to enemy sonar. Steel subs can only go down about half a mile.
I suppose the Japs will have to go out and catch a few thousand of them for "research purposes"
The reason for the 20 ton mass requirement is due to the fact that the train track will be expected to 'build itself'. As new sections of the truss are brought up in the shuttle payload bay (each massing about 14,000 kg), they need to be attached to the ends of the truss already in place. The shuttle robot arm won't be able to reach that far out, so the station's robot arm (with one end on the 'train') will chug out along the rails on top of the truss, then lock itself down, grab the payload from the shuttle, and swing it accros and attach it onto the end of the truss. Repeat eight times (with eight shuttle flights, and lots of spanner weilding astronouts to bolt it together), and the truss is completed by 2004 or so.
Also, a lot of very heavy equipment is mounted in/on the truss (things like storage batteries for example), and these need to be replaced every so often, so the train will be used for that also.
Regarding the water, the US considers it a waste product, and actually dumps quite a lot of it from the US lab on the station. (quite a lot of it builds as condensation from the people on board, several liters per person per day). The Russians on the other hand, consider it a resource, and pump the 'waste' water from their AirConditioner into a electrolosis unit which electrically splits off the oxygen for breathing purposes. In any case the condensed water would not be safe for drinking, but fresh drinking water is supplied by the shuttle, as a by-product of the shuttle fuel cells. (Cyrogenic H2 + 02 = lots of electricty + pure water) The shuttle actually produces a *lot* of water, but dosn't really carry much into orbit to start with!