Since MHI has developed "your plastic pal who's fun to be with", does this mean that their marketing department will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes?
No matter what you do, no matter how careful you are, no matter how much redundancy or how large a safety factor you have, there will always be something that can go wrong in a very bad way.
True, but you can make those circumstances extremely rare, AND you can increase the vehicle's ability to recover from them. For example, if you did a much more powerful deorbit burn, you're travelling more slowly when you hit the atmosphere. The reason the writers on Star Trek don't write reentry plumes into Star Trek is because they assume that the shuttles are powerful enough to slow themselves down from orbital speed to landing speed. Well, perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, but you get the point.
All things considered, the shuttle is an extremely well built and carefully looked after machine with an exceptional safety and performance record. I don't feel anyone is at fault for what happened... it was just the luck of the draw.
Exceptional compared to what exactly? On what scale is two catastrophically fatal accidents out of 107 a good record? Carefully looked after? Absolutely, no argument there. Well built? It's the best spacecraft the 1960's have to offer (construction contract awarded in 1972). An average shuttle flight costs $500 million. It flies a handful of times a year, and it blows up every 50 missions or so. This is a successful program?
I'm what I would describe as radically pro-space (thought that doesn't necesarily translate as pro-NASA), but the shuttle program is an albatross. We desperately need to dump it and replace it with a cheapera and smaller vehicle with a much more focused mission. If there's experimentation to be done, do it on the ISS; that's what it's there for. If you want to put a satellite or another spacecraft in orbit, do it using ESA or Russian heavy lifters.
I read the full-on 30 odd page PDF report when this was discussed a few months back ago, and was left largely with the impression that the space elevator has one problem and one problem only: the design of a process to manufacture the cable.
Before you say, well, duh! what I mean by this is that we know what the chemical composition would be, and almost all of the problems with regard to cable damage (slow decay through ionization, meteor strike, etc) have been solved, on paper at least.
So what remains is the process by which we can manufacture large amounts of carbon nanotubes and precise configurations. This would seem to be a good research project whether it results in a space elevator or not. The spin-offs could be incredible.
On a second point, I wonder whether NASA is questioning the insulation damage hypothesis as a precursor to pointing at something they couldn't control, like a lightning strike or collision with something. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but right now NASA seems to be saying "it's not that, but we can't tell you why it's not."
Ever since Star Trek VI, each movie has had less character advancement, plot, etc. than a typical episode of TNG, and any episode of DS9.
I think what may be going on is "going for the big score" as opposed to "targeting the geeks". When you're doing a weekly series, you can target a higher IQ / continuity awareness / suspension of disbelief because you know your base. When you produce a major film, you necessarily (because of a greater budget) try to bring in a larger audience, so you are inclined to lower the bar for the audience.
This doesn't explain Enterprise, which is dismal, nor does it explain Star Trek II, which is both the greatest movie success (whether it pulled the biggest box office or not) and HEAVILY dependent on continuity, IQ, suspension of disbelief.
I liked Nemesis, it's just that we've done 4 movies on Picard and Data now, and that vein is dry. Unlike TOS, TNG was SUPPOSED to be much more balanced with respect to the entire cast. Are you telling me that a movie with Worf as the central character wouldn't work? I think it's worth a try.
DFW's outstanding local coverage of the tragedy (the anchor is a pilot and really knows his shiznit about aviation tech) pointed out what must have been a huge piece breaking off before the contrail begins. I immediately said "bay door". He followed with that a moment later.
It's obviously way early, but it's possible that the shuttle bay door was not secure, the ram pressure of reentry levered it open, the shuttle tumbled due to new aerodynamic forces, and the rest is, sadly, history.
Yeah, in fact, I think they addressed that in a DS9 episode, IIRC.
On the other hand, if the transport involves something funky like quantum entanglement, you could transport, but not alter the object (see: quantum encryption). That doesn't explain replicators, though, which do exactly that.
I used to scoff at the transporter, but recent stuff ("transporting" a photon) has made me a little less quick to scoff.
One of the things that always cracked my suspension of disbelief wide open was the medical technology on Star Trek. Specifically, whenever the doctor (choose your favorite) would pass a light over someone's arm and the wound would close.
It seems to me that this could be the reality, give or take 100 years, to that dramatic device. Start with a good gash in someone's arm, something bad enough to require stitches and would leave a scar with our current technology. Doctor takes a hand held "flesh printer", that "prints" either a rejection neutral flesh cover to the wound (more Star Trek tech) or a genetically specific cover (maybe presampled and supplied in the device, or even more fancy dynamically sampled and generated).
So muscle injuries require more involved work, but a shallow tissue wound can be fixed more or less on the fly.
Real doctors: start your engines. What's stupid about this idea? It is of course more complicated than simply laying the skin over top; blood vessels and nerves would have to be reconnected, depending on the damage. I would appreciate a thoughtful critique.
Excellent points all around. Your thinking argues for an entirely different strategy.
You want true automotive recycling? Pursue greater modularity and standard across automakers. Decrease black-boxiness of parts (make them mechanic repairable as they once were).
Of course these goals, as always, are probably at cross purposes with others.
Assuming that energy has to be expended to produce hydrogen in the first place, does anyone have any idea on what the net environmental effect of a fuel cell car is versus a traditional ICE one?
Obviously, there are economies of scale in producing hydrogen in mass quantities, but it seems to me the claims that GM has made to the effect of removing the car as a significant factor in the environment are utter horsehockey.
I remember, back when I was even more ignorant about physics than I am now, envisioning a communications device that worked instantaneously over long distances. I assumed that gravity traveled instantaneously throughout the universe, so all you needed was a significantly large mass that you could perturb in a predictable (to the receiver) way, and a vastly more sensitive perturbation detector than we have now.
Oh well. It was a cool idea, anyway. I wonder if gravity travels at a uniform speed under different space-time conditions, that is, if I perturb a mass on Earth, does the effect travel at the same speed as when 1km from a black hole? Thoughts? Random speculations like this?
The most significant part of a turkey's existence is when a human being consumes it.
Re:Congratulations Mr. Marthouse, You've Invented.
on
The End of Solotrek
·
· Score: 2
In my experience, the problem with sufficiently long commutes (we're talking DART here) is that slight asyncs with the system added up to huge penalties. What I mean by this is that to reach my job I had to follow this route:
1. Drive to train station
2. Take train to another station
3. (FIRST PENALTY) Wait for next train...10 minutes
4. Take train to next station
5. (SECOND PENALTY) Wait for bus...12 minutes
6. Take bus to transit center
7. (THIRD PENALTY) Wait for last bus...17 minutes
Total penalties: 39 minutes. Add to this the drawback of having to be very specific about what time I arrive and leave, not being able to drive anywhere for lunch, having a very hard limit on how late I can stay...it simply wasn't possible.
Thinking like a good economist, I thought that commuting makes a lot more sense for people for whose time is less valuable, i.e., if I work at a 7-11, and public transportation saves me from having to own a car, then it's a much better deal.
Anyhow, you missed the point of your own project. It seems to me that the main application would be for shipping rather than personal transport. Items are shipped in trucks rather than trains for the same reasons (asynchronicity, necessity of trucking at least a portion of the route). Trucking routes have almost exactly the needs you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
Since MHI has developed "your plastic pal who's fun to be with", does this mean that their marketing department will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes?
No matter what you do, no matter how careful you are, no matter how much redundancy or how large a safety factor you have, there will always be something that can go wrong in a very bad way.
True, but you can make those circumstances extremely rare, AND you can increase the vehicle's ability to recover from them. For example, if you did a much more powerful deorbit burn, you're travelling more slowly when you hit the atmosphere. The reason the writers on Star Trek don't write reentry plumes into Star Trek is because they assume that the shuttles are powerful enough to slow themselves down from orbital speed to landing speed. Well, perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, but you get the point.
All things considered, the shuttle is an extremely well built and carefully looked after machine with an exceptional safety and performance record. I don't feel anyone is at fault for what happened... it was just the luck of the draw.
Exceptional compared to what exactly? On what scale is two catastrophically fatal accidents out of 107 a good record? Carefully looked after? Absolutely, no argument there. Well built? It's the best spacecraft the 1960's have to offer (construction contract awarded in 1972). An average shuttle flight costs $500 million. It flies a handful of times a year, and it blows up every 50 missions or so. This is a successful program?
I'm what I would describe as radically pro-space (thought that doesn't necesarily translate as pro-NASA), but the shuttle program is an albatross. We desperately need to dump it and replace it with a cheapera and smaller vehicle with a much more focused mission. If there's experimentation to be done, do it on the ISS; that's what it's there for. If you want to put a satellite or another spacecraft in orbit, do it using ESA or Russian heavy lifters.
The subject of white people's robot's butts could be a great step forward for black comedy.
I read the full-on 30 odd page PDF report when this was discussed a few months back ago, and was left largely with the impression that the space elevator has one problem and one problem only: the design of a process to manufacture the cable.
Before you say, well, duh! what I mean by this is that we know what the chemical composition would be, and almost all of the problems with regard to cable damage (slow decay through ionization, meteor strike, etc) have been solved, on paper at least.
So what remains is the process by which we can manufacture large amounts of carbon nanotubes and precise configurations. This would seem to be a good research project whether it results in a space elevator or not. The spin-offs could be incredible.
On a second point, I wonder whether NASA is questioning the insulation damage hypothesis as a precursor to pointing at something they couldn't control, like a lightning strike or collision with something. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but right now NASA seems to be saying "it's not that, but we can't tell you why it's not."
Is karma the only envy from which you suffer?
Score: CommieLib 5, Anonymous Coward -1.
That we should eat a piece of paper with the recipe for a cake written on it?
Ever since Star Trek VI, each movie has had less character advancement, plot, etc. than a typical episode of TNG, and any episode of DS9.
I think what may be going on is "going for the big score" as opposed to "targeting the geeks". When you're doing a weekly series, you can target a higher IQ / continuity awareness / suspension of disbelief because you know your base. When you produce a major film, you necessarily (because of a greater budget) try to bring in a larger audience, so you are inclined to lower the bar for the audience.
This doesn't explain Enterprise, which is dismal, nor does it explain Star Trek II, which is both the greatest movie success (whether it pulled the biggest box office or not) and HEAVILY dependent on continuity, IQ, suspension of disbelief.
I liked Nemesis, it's just that we've done 4 movies on Picard and Data now, and that vein is dry. Unlike TOS, TNG was SUPPOSED to be much more balanced with respect to the entire cast. Are you telling me that a movie with Worf as the central character wouldn't work? I think it's worth a try.
DFW's outstanding local coverage of the tragedy (the anchor is a pilot and really knows his shiznit about aviation tech) pointed out what must have been a huge piece breaking off before the contrail begins. I immediately said "bay door". He followed with that a moment later.
It's obviously way early, but it's possible that the shuttle bay door was not secure, the ram pressure of reentry levered it open, the shuttle tumbled due to new aerodynamic forces, and the rest is, sadly, history.
Home ludens- should be homo ludens, translates as "playing human."
telos - Greek, as in teleology, "the end".
Eventually, all roads lead back to Jules Verne.
Yeah, in fact, I think they addressed that in a DS9 episode, IIRC.
On the other hand, if the transport involves something funky like quantum entanglement, you could transport, but not alter the object (see: quantum encryption). That doesn't explain replicators, though, which do exactly that.
I used to scoff at the transporter, but recent stuff ("transporting" a photon) has made me a little less quick to scoff.
One of the things that always cracked my suspension of disbelief wide open was the medical technology on Star Trek. Specifically, whenever the doctor (choose your favorite) would pass a light over someone's arm and the wound would close.
It seems to me that this could be the reality, give or take 100 years, to that dramatic device. Start with a good gash in someone's arm, something bad enough to require stitches and would leave a scar with our current technology. Doctor takes a hand held "flesh printer", that "prints" either a rejection neutral flesh cover to the wound (more Star Trek tech) or a genetically specific cover (maybe presampled and supplied in the device, or even more fancy dynamically sampled and generated).
So muscle injuries require more involved work, but a shallow tissue wound can be fixed more or less on the fly.
Real doctors: start your engines. What's stupid about this idea? It is of course more complicated than simply laying the skin over top; blood vessels and nerves would have to be reconnected, depending on the damage. I would appreciate a thoughtful critique.
Excellent points all around. Your thinking argues for an entirely different strategy.
You want true automotive recycling? Pursue greater modularity and standard across automakers. Decrease black-boxiness of parts (make them mechanic repairable as they once were).
Of course these goals, as always, are probably at cross purposes with others.
Do they really need a computer to do this? I mean it isn't...oh, wait...never mind.
Take off the tinfoil hat. Where do you think hydrogen will come from?
It will be refined from petrochemical products.
Assuming that energy has to be expended to produce hydrogen in the first place, does anyone have any idea on what the net environmental effect of a fuel cell car is versus a traditional ICE one?
Obviously, there are economies of scale in producing hydrogen in mass quantities, but it seems to me the claims that GM has made to the effect of removing the car as a significant factor in the environment are utter horsehockey.
Hey Jeff, could you come over and take a look at my computer?
Sorry man, I could get in real trouble if I work on your computer. I don't have a license...
I remember, back when I was even more ignorant about physics than I am now, envisioning a communications device that worked instantaneously over long distances. I assumed that gravity traveled instantaneously throughout the universe, so all you needed was a significantly large mass that you could perturb in a predictable (to the receiver) way, and a vastly more sensitive perturbation detector than we have now.
Oh well. It was a cool idea, anyway. I wonder if gravity travels at a uniform speed under different space-time conditions, that is, if I perturb a mass on Earth, does the effect travel at the same speed as when 1km from a black hole? Thoughts? Random speculations like this?
Maybe the ring makes them invisible? Maybe it binds them all? Maybe it...oh, never mind.
and they couldn't find it for some reason...
The prime mover of the plot, the "Canopus plague", seems to be a reference to TSR's venerable RPG Gamma World.
Seven days after you watch this, you die.
Sedentary meat delivered to be eaten by sedentary Americans.
The most significant part of a turkey's existence is when a human being consumes it.
In my experience, the problem with sufficiently long commutes (we're talking DART here) is that slight asyncs with the system added up to huge penalties. What I mean by this is that to reach my job I had to follow this route:
1. Drive to train station
2. Take train to another station 3. (FIRST PENALTY) Wait for next train...10 minutes 4. Take train to next station 5. (SECOND PENALTY) Wait for bus...12 minutes 6. Take bus to transit center 7. (THIRD PENALTY) Wait for last bus...17 minutes
Total penalties: 39 minutes. Add to this the drawback of having to be very specific about what time I arrive and leave, not being able to drive anywhere for lunch, having a very hard limit on how late I can stay...it simply wasn't possible.
Thinking like a good economist, I thought that commuting makes a lot more sense for people for whose time is less valuable, i.e., if I work at a 7-11, and public transportation saves me from having to own a car, then it's a much better deal.
Anyhow, you missed the point of your own project. It seems to me that the main application would be for shipping rather than personal transport. Items are shipped in trucks rather than trains for the same reasons (asynchronicity, necessity of trucking at least a portion of the route). Trucking routes have almost exactly the needs you describe.