If you check out the temp chart, it takes up to 13 minutes to reach full-cold temp. That means it would get colder as I drink my soda or whatever. That would be rather odd....I'm used to drinks getting warmer!
I agree that all the planets are uniquely fantastic. But many people think "Neptune? bah. just another gas giant. ho hum" -- or they think all moons are like our moon -- pretty much just a boring rock.
well thats a valid argument, but it has a flaw. the money spent on science is unlikely, if pulled, to feed and clothe the poor. its more likely to be funneled into defense projects.
the other problem with the "money better spent" on feeding the hungry and clothing the poor argument is that its simply impossible to practically do that. there are too many hands the money and food must cross, and corruption is a given. Sure, we must try, but not at the expense of that which furthers other industries. And science isn't the biggest waste of money. What about the millions paid to sports stars? that should be given to the poor. How about the millions you spend on entertainment? surely you could sacrafice a little fun for someone to eat. maybe you should sacrafice all your fun. work hard and only keep what you need to live. not live comfortably, or happily, just live -- donate the rest to the unfortunate. It's a slippery slope. Sadly, feeding and clothing the poor is simply not an easy problem to fix -- diverting funds from science research is surely not the answer.
regardless, even smaller space telescopes can still do some things better than ground based. I'm all for advancing and utilizing BOTH techniques as much as possible. More science == good. 8D
Planetary scientists would LOVE a galileo/cassini type mission to neptune. The planet and its moons are just bizarre. It has normal looking full sized moons in retrograde orbit - which normally implies captured bodies...but they are usually irregularly shaped. It has goofy looking moons in normal orbits, which would normally imply a body formed with the planet...but those aren't usually irregularly shaped. And the big moon, Triton, is amazing...huge geyser/volcanic-like plumes of frozen black-stuff. There's theories as to what it is, but the underlying mechanisms aren't well understood. An amazing outer planet.
All the mac zealots are up in arms! Of course, many of the open source-standard protocol zealots need to speak up in defense of real...though it must hurt. where are ya'll?
If you think about it, the accelerate/decelerate model doesn't apply well to solar sails. With a more conventional, internal power source, you would accelerate (for "optimal") halfway at x force, then turn the emitter around and decelerate at x force. with the solar sail, the force applied to the sail decreases (the density of photons hitting the sail) as you further from the power source (sun) -- that makes it real hard to accelerate/decelerate as "optimally" as self contained source. I don't know the math involved, but youre not going to be able to accelerate much past what you need to push to the new orbit -- there's just not enough energy further out to slow down enough, comparitively.
right, but with a solar sail you can change the angle the sun hits, thereby changing the angle of direction of force. That means you can use it to turn, maybe even up to 90 degrees from the source. So you can do lateral movement.
Now, you can also use a solar sail to slow down your orbital speed, meaning you will fall into the sun. So with combined left-right movement, alternately slowing down and speeding up orbital momentum, falling and then accelerating out, you could conceivably traverse the whole spectrum. And you could do it in three dimensions, moving into polar orbits etc.
IF your target is pluto and you wait til you get there to furl them up, you'll go flying right by with no way to stop. Unless you've worked out the engineering to tack against the force of the sun, in which case you've been altering the plane of the sails the whole way, and wouldn't furl.
As for optimal missions, I'd disagree with that. Optimal would be a direct shot out to whatever planet you wanted to. But that would be VERY energy expensive -- but it would be optimal. Instead, we give a little nudge here and there and steal energy by gravity-assisting from venus and multiple passes by earth. It all takes much longer, and I don't consider that optimal. Maybe you do, and that's fine. But to me, optimal is not "as little energy as possible, sacrificing time" but "as little time as possible".
well the real world is not full of optimal situations. if you want to get to pluto, you're gonna have to carry a chemical rocket (heavy) or be happy with creating an orbit with your sail and then furling them up.
15m may be small for human+support payloads. But its still pretty big -- imagine you're standing in a slight, steady breeze. Run into the wind. Not too hard. Now open a "small" umbrella, maybe 1-2m across. Put it behind you. Now try running into the wind. That breeze, caught by the umbrella, is now a pretty formidible Force.
2) if Yes, it answers 1) -- you could tack around into a matching orbit. Is 2) possible? I don't know for sure, but I bet with sophisticated enough engineering and dynamic shaping of the sail, yes.
cluster bomblets to ICBMs are a poor analogy methinks. If youre firing nukes off, its the end of the world, and youd better hope your nukes blow up more than the enemies -- otherwise they might be left around to repopulate and you won't.
you just build a bigger sail. It's light, and that's the point. HUGE sails are possible in a weightless environment, and a bigger sail harnesses more energy.
They can be hard to stop its true, except when approaching another star, which is the ultimate goal for the technology. The wind from Star B pushes back, slowing it down. When it achieves proper orbit speed, it furls the sails.
Within the solar system, the idea is you get the solar wind to push hard enough to achieve a certain speed, then you furl the sails and it coasts into the new orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you check out the temp chart, it takes up to 13 minutes to reach full-cold temp. That means it would get colder as I drink my soda or whatever. That would be rather odd....I'm used to drinks getting warmer!
even as a trojan! Imagine the emails..."click here now to see young, hot unsuspecting amateur teens!"
who wrote this worm again, I wonder....?
I agree that all the planets are uniquely fantastic. But many people think "Neptune? bah. just another gas giant. ho hum" -- or they think all moons are like our moon -- pretty much just a boring rock.
you gotta hand it to them, this is pretty cool use of technology.
2. In Soviet Union, Powerbook burns you!
Wait, so here in the West, I burn the Powerbook? I think you got it backwards...
well thats a valid argument, but it has a flaw. the money spent on science is unlikely, if pulled, to feed and clothe the poor. its more likely to be funneled into defense projects.
the other problem with the "money better spent" on feeding the hungry and clothing the poor argument is that its simply impossible to practically do that. there are too many hands the money and food must cross, and corruption is a given. Sure, we must try, but not at the expense of that which furthers other industries. And science isn't the biggest waste of money. What about the millions paid to sports stars? that should be given to the poor. How about the millions you spend on entertainment? surely you could sacrafice a little fun for someone to eat. maybe you should sacrafice all your fun. work hard and only keep what you need to live. not live comfortably, or happily, just live -- donate the rest to the unfortunate. It's a slippery slope. Sadly, feeding and clothing the poor is simply not an easy problem to fix -- diverting funds from science research is surely not the answer.
regardless, even smaller space telescopes can still do some things better than ground based. I'm all for advancing and utilizing BOTH techniques as much as possible. More science == good. 8D
Planetary scientists would LOVE a galileo/cassini type mission to neptune. The planet and its moons are just bizarre. It has normal looking full sized moons in retrograde orbit - which normally implies captured bodies...but they are usually irregularly shaped. It has goofy looking moons in normal orbits, which would normally imply a body formed with the planet...but those aren't usually irregularly shaped. And the big moon, Triton, is amazing...huge geyser/volcanic-like plumes of frozen black-stuff. There's theories as to what it is, but the underlying mechanisms aren't well understood. An amazing outer planet.
Too bad the boat lost.
"We're gonna need a bigger boat."
i had that game. good lord it was hard for me as a kid. not as hard as dick tracy or the original TMNT for nintendo though....man, TMNT was IMpossible
well technically speaking, isnt apple also acting in a hypocritical manner?
Hey no argument here. But does that mean they get a free pass?
All the mac zealots are up in arms! Of course, many of the open source-standard protocol zealots need to speak up in defense of real...though it must hurt. where are ya'll?
Man...dorks and nerds in Japan look just like dorks and nerds in the US. It really puts it all in perspective...
If you think about it, the accelerate/decelerate model doesn't apply well to solar sails. With a more conventional, internal power source, you would accelerate (for "optimal") halfway at x force, then turn the emitter around and decelerate at x force. with the solar sail, the force applied to the sail decreases (the density of photons hitting the sail) as you further from the power source (sun) -- that makes it real hard to accelerate/decelerate as "optimally" as self contained source. I don't know the math involved, but youre not going to be able to accelerate much past what you need to push to the new orbit -- there's just not enough energy further out to slow down enough, comparitively.
right, but with a solar sail you can change the angle the sun hits, thereby changing the angle of direction of force. That means you can use it to turn, maybe even up to 90 degrees from the source. So you can do lateral movement.
Now, you can also use a solar sail to slow down your orbital speed, meaning you will fall into the sun. So with combined left-right movement, alternately slowing down and speeding up orbital momentum, falling and then accelerating out, you could conceivably traverse the whole spectrum. And you could do it in three dimensions, moving into polar orbits etc.
At least, I think.
you're absolutely right. sometimes i type too fast for my own good. i swear, it's because my boss was nearby... ;)
using the sail to slow down is one way. the other way would be the same way a sailboat sails into the wind, no?
IF your target is pluto and you wait til you get there to furl them up, you'll go flying right by with no way to stop. Unless you've worked out the engineering to tack against the force of the sun, in which case you've been altering the plane of the sails the whole way, and wouldn't furl.
As for optimal missions, I'd disagree with that. Optimal would be a direct shot out to whatever planet you wanted to. But that would be VERY energy expensive -- but it would be optimal. Instead, we give a little nudge here and there and steal energy by gravity-assisting from venus and multiple passes by earth. It all takes much longer, and I don't consider that optimal. Maybe you do, and that's fine. But to me, optimal is not "as little energy as possible, sacrificing time" but "as little time as possible".
well the real world is not full of optimal situations. if you want to get to pluto, you're gonna have to carry a chemical rocket (heavy) or be happy with creating an orbit with your sail and then furling them up.
15m may be small for human+support payloads. But its still pretty big -- imagine you're standing in a slight, steady breeze. Run into the wind. Not too hard. Now open a "small" umbrella, maybe 1-2m across. Put it behind you. Now try running into the wind. That breeze, caught by the umbrella, is now a pretty formidible Force.
2) if Yes, it answers 1) -- you could tack around into a matching orbit. Is 2) possible? I don't know for sure, but I bet with sophisticated enough engineering and dynamic shaping of the sail, yes.
cluster bomblets to ICBMs are a poor analogy methinks. If youre firing nukes off, its the end of the world, and youd better hope your nukes blow up more than the enemies -- otherwise they might be left around to repopulate and you won't.
you just build a bigger sail. It's light, and that's the point. HUGE sails are possible in a weightless environment, and a bigger sail harnesses more energy.
They can be hard to stop its true, except when approaching another star, which is the ultimate goal for the technology. The wind from Star B pushes back, slowing it down. When it achieves proper orbit speed, it furls the sails.
Within the solar system, the idea is you get the solar wind to push hard enough to achieve a certain speed, then you furl the sails and it coasts into the new orbit.