As "young" as the rings are, they're still quite old compared to mankind:) Easily could have been an impact millions of years ago that is still having effects on Saturn...
I've not seen the pix of Iapetus yet, server is a bit slow from here, but the Cassini picture of the edge-on rings is absolutely incredible.
How.... "herded":)
One would think that random impacts and gravitational interactions among the particles in the ring would make them much "fuzzier". Yet the ring is remarkably compact. It's not even on Saturn's equator, it's tilted.
My first thought there (+grain_salt) is that Saturn must have suffered a grazing collision with a large body - probably the same one that created the rings - and the dispersion of the rings mass, like the recession of Earth's moon, is having the same effect on Saturn that it does here, slowing rotation. Unlike Earth's moon this would have to be an unstable system.
Only that seems like a *huge* number, given how fast Saturns' rotation is, and how massive it is *. So the impact must be recent - and it's pretty widely accepted, I gather, that Saturn's rings are very young.
If that figure for the rotational change is right - is it just the surface winds or something deeper? - then whatever created the rings was *very very* recent?
* Too tired to do the math, but wouldn't Saturn's low density contribute?
Even for us on the ground there is a lot to be said about pre-fabrication.
Perhaps we need to do more work on post-fabrication technology:) ala teleoperated/semi-autonomous assembly robots. Why not?
If we're going to move to a small-mass cargo transport for individual cargo pieces (ala the space elevator, smaller launchers, "railguns", etc) it would make more sense to develop advanced tele-operated assembly capabilities anyway, wouldn't it? That begs the question of whether multiple smaller launchers will be more "economical" - but my guess is that in the long run that isn't going to matter much as other nations pursue their own options. We'll *have* to if we want to maintain a space presence.
We certainly have the needed computer power in small packages now, and the datalinks available (especially in LEO!:) and R&D on microsats has accomplished some incredible things.
Of course we have to reflect that capability (or future:) in our designs now... and I don't think there are enough who are thinking that far ahead.
the switching of large magnetic fields at high propagation rates
Reminds me of fusion for some reason:)
I do think that if serious money/brainpower/computer time is thrown at EMRs that we'll have one soon. The Navy certainly seems determined - and I find I agree with their reasoning... plus I like the idea of the tech propogation thru the space industry. Even if it isn't feasible to use a EMR to launch from Earth (and there are plenty of other difficulties there!:) at least we'd have it for any lunar base effort - and it's invaluable there. Launch costs are essentially what it costs to erect solar panels (well, lots of them:)
wildly infeasible
I'd not say that; rather I'd say that it'd be incredibly expensive and take, oh, about 5-10 years if we are really determined. There we enter the dreaded realm of politics:)
Well, we've built and 'fired' them in the lab. The technology doesn't really require any breakthroughs, just the refinement of existing technology.
It's true that building a large-scale one is currently out of our reach for the above-mentioned reasons; but the Navy is embarking on a huge project to develop them for armaments, and there will undoubtedly be spinoffs from their R&D.
Star Trek-style transporters on the other hand require at least three major breakthroughs in theory, so that was a poor analogy:)
Another thing to consider is that with gravity control (let's just assume:) it's very localized and not a drive system for now) if it also functions as an inertial dampener, you can run a fusion drive up to hundreds of gees or more depending on your system.
Accel like that can cut even billion+ km journeys down quite a bit:)
append *Jayne slurring his words* "I'll be in my bunk"
:D
There's also the "I can kill you with my brain" thing, which reminds me of the blue-hands guys and their bleeding-out-the-cranial-orifices method of execution.
Excellent point, hadn't thought of that....ye gawds -not that she'd need such a weapon, she seems pretty deadly without:)
Earth died - Earth That Was - they fled to Centauri; there's lots of gas giants and moons that are semi-hab or terraformable there. *cough* 500 years certainly gives enough time.
(ok, it's a WAG, but it's the only theory I've come up with that works:)
A one mile asteroid impact would have a approximate energy of 300 gigatons. Makes one think that the global 'resonance' effects from larger impacts would contribute greatly to worldwide destruction.
Another challenge (and one I wonder if NASA is going to require) is for the machinery to be vacuum and dust resistant; ie, not vulnerable to vacuum cementing of moving parts (we're moving rock grains thru it, there will be moving parts and lots of dust problems)
As another poster pointed out, it'd probably be electric - but I would think that the waste heat from a nuclear reactor might be enough. Unless our battery technology improves radically - or unless we locate the base at one of the permanent sunlight locations - it'll be much cheaper to transport a good sized reactor up there rather than tons of batteries *and* the solar setup needed to charge them. We'll already have to transport enough setups like that for vehicles, and if we're mining, we'll need some pretty robust vehicles.
In any case we are going to have to do a lot of research to make these beasts reliable and low maintenance. It's an entirely different environment.
True in one sense, but on the other hand, it's easier for countries with an established technological base to shoot you down, too:(
I realize you're talking broader then LEO, but we're not even there yet, really, are we?
If that were true, the Soviet Union would not have been able to fly over U.S. territory and vice-versa.
So what, exactly, were we going to do about it at the time? Tho I do think Eisenhowever made the decision more out of a gesture of friendship than out of practicality, he had to have been advised that it was useless and provocative to forbid it. At that time we had very little idea of the real capabilities of the USSR.
We may never really know what went thru his mind. I think he made the right choice, probably one of the very few major policy decisions out there which make both common sense and long term sense:) Be an interesting alternate universe idea for a story, if he had decided to forbid it.
If advertising money could play a big role in getting us cheap access to space, is that a good, or a bad thing;0
Imagine what a great billboard a space elevator would make. You could see the ads for thousands of kilometers around, and target your audience by how high up the elevator the ad was.
Oh, joy.
Would we have our Edward Abbeys among the cable maintenance crews? One can hope:)
Slashdot Mirror
The dancer continues to slowly spread her arms, and Saturn's inertial moment changes as the ring system changes. Do I have to spell it out?
SB
As "young" as the rings are, they're still quite old compared to mankind
SB
Briefly :)
Ah, Alderaan, we miss thee, tho we never knew thee
SB
I've not seen the pix of Iapetus yet, server is a bit slow from here, but the Cassini picture of the edge-on rings is absolutely incredible.
:)
:)
How.... "herded"
One would think that random impacts and gravitational interactions among the particles in the ring would make them much "fuzzier". Yet the ring is remarkably compact. It's not even on Saturn's equator, it's tilted.
Makes my head hurt
Cheers,
SB
Just an amateur astronomer, but :)
My first thought there (+grain_salt) is that Saturn must have suffered a grazing collision with a large body - probably the same one that created the rings - and the dispersion of the rings mass, like the recession of Earth's moon, is having the same effect on Saturn that it does here, slowing rotation. Unlike Earth's moon this would have to be an unstable system.
Only that seems like a *huge* number, given how fast Saturns' rotation is, and how massive it is *. So the impact must be recent - and it's pretty widely accepted, I gather, that Saturn's rings are very young.
If that figure for the rotational change is right - is it just the surface winds or something deeper? - then whatever created the rings was *very very* recent?
* Too tired to do the math, but wouldn't Saturn's low density contribute?
Cheers,
SB
Even for us on the ground there is a lot to be said about pre-fabrication.
:) ala teleoperated/semi-autonomous assembly robots. Why not?
:) and R&D on microsats has accomplished some incredible things.
:) in our designs now... and I don't think there are enough who are thinking that far ahead.
Perhaps we need to do more work on post-fabrication technology
If we're going to move to a small-mass cargo transport for individual cargo pieces (ala the space elevator, smaller launchers, "railguns", etc) it would make more sense to develop advanced tele-operated assembly capabilities anyway, wouldn't it? That begs the question of whether multiple smaller launchers will be more "economical" - but my guess is that in the long run that isn't going to matter much as other nations pursue their own options. We'll *have* to if we want to maintain a space presence.
We certainly have the needed computer power in small packages now, and the datalinks available (especially in LEO!
Of course we have to reflect that capability (or future
Sigh.
Cheers,
SB
the switching of large magnetic fields at high propagation rates
:)
:) at least we'd have it for any lunar base effort - and it's invaluable there. Launch costs are essentially what it costs to erect solar panels (well, lots of them :)
:)
Reminds me of fusion for some reason
I do think that if serious money/brainpower/computer time is thrown at EMRs that we'll have one soon. The Navy certainly seems determined - and I find I agree with their reasoning... plus I like the idea of the tech propogation thru the space industry. Even if it isn't feasible to use a EMR to launch from Earth (and there are plenty of other difficulties there!
wildly infeasible
I'd not say that; rather I'd say that it'd be incredibly expensive and take, oh, about 5-10 years if we are really determined. There we enter the dreaded realm of politics
But we can do it.
Cheers!
SB
Well, we've built and 'fired' them in the lab. The technology doesn't really require any breakthroughs, just the refinement of existing technology.
It's true that building a large-scale one is currently out of our reach for the above-mentioned reasons; but the Navy is embarking on a huge project to develop them for armaments, and there will undoubtedly be spinoffs from their R&D.
Star Trek-style transporters on the other hand require at least three major breakthroughs in theory, so that was a poor analogy
Cheers,
SB
Another thing to consider is that with gravity control (let's just assume :) it's very localized and not a drive system for now) if it also functions as an inertial dampener, you can run a fusion drive up to hundreds of gees or more depending on your system.
:)
Accel like that can cut even billion+ km journeys down quite a bit
Cheers!
SB
append *Jayne slurring his words* "I'll be in my bunk"
There's also the "I can kill you with my brain" thing, which reminds me of the blue-hands guys and their bleeding-out-the-cranial-orifices method of execution.
Excellent point, hadn't thought of that....ye gawds -not that she'd need such a weapon, she seems pretty deadly without
Cheers!
SB
It's the Centauri system :)
:)
Earth died - Earth That Was - they fled to Centauri; there's lots of gas giants and moons that are semi-hab or terraformable there. *cough* 500 years certainly gives enough time.
(ok, it's a WAG, but it's the only theory I've come up with that works
Cheers!
SB
Methinks you read too much slashdot and don't travel enough on the web:) Firefly is all over the place.
Here's one recent example....
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,10
Cheers
SB
More like the probable cause of the next one :(
Cheers,
SB
Anywhere one can read that story? Sounds like a good one!
Hopefully he had an effective wake-up sound set in his email prefs
SB
Anyone here know how to do sampling for digitizers?
*goes to answer the knock at his door*
SB
The copy *would* be inside of a simulation, there'd have to be a software/firmware layer between it and it's hardware sensors ;)
SB
Another bloody thing to add to my install/tweak notes for new installations of windows for customers.
Joy. There's more than enough in there already.
When is Microsoft going to get some sense?
SB
I had the same problem. I didn't have time to dive into it, tho, and it was a fresh FF install, so I just wiped the FF config dir and started again.
SessionSaver has to save it's last 'state' somewhere. Anyone know?
SB
Broadcom sucks.
SB
We can't even become extinct without starting another religion? ;-)
I for one would love to be around to hear their verbal legends...
SB
Those figures are fascinating.
A one mile asteroid impact would have a approximate energy of 300 gigatons. Makes one think that the global 'resonance' effects from larger impacts would contribute greatly to worldwide destruction.
SB
Another challenge (and one I wonder if NASA is going to require) is for the machinery to be vacuum and dust resistant; ie, not vulnerable to vacuum cementing of moving parts (we're moving rock grains thru it, there will be moving parts and lots of dust problems)
As another poster pointed out, it'd probably be electric - but I would think that the waste heat from a nuclear reactor might be enough. Unless our battery technology improves radically - or unless we locate the base at one of the permanent sunlight locations - it'll be much cheaper to transport a good sized reactor up there rather than tons of batteries *and* the solar setup needed to charge them. We'll already have to transport enough setups like that for vehicles, and if we're mining, we'll need some pretty robust vehicles.
In any case we are going to have to do a lot of research to make these beasts reliable and low maintenance. It's an entirely different environment.
SB
Blade Runner, oddly enough, is probably the best example of that
SB
Outer space is open to whomever can get there.
:(
:) Be an interesting alternate universe idea for a story, if he had decided to forbid it.
True in one sense, but on the other hand, it's easier for countries with an established technological base to shoot you down, too
I realize you're talking broader then LEO, but we're not even there yet, really, are we?
If that were true, the Soviet Union would not have been able to fly over U.S. territory and vice-versa.
So what, exactly, were we going to do about it at the time? Tho I do think Eisenhowever made the decision more out of a gesture of friendship than out of practicality, he had to have been advised that it was useless and provocative to forbid it. At that time we had very little idea of the real capabilities of the USSR.
We may never really know what went thru his mind. I think he made the right choice, probably one of the very few major policy decisions out there which make both common sense and long term sense
Sigh.
Cheers,
SB
So the real question there is:
;0
:)
If advertising money could play a big role in getting us cheap access to space, is that a good, or a bad thing
Imagine what a great billboard a space elevator would make. You could see the ads for thousands of kilometers around, and target your audience by how high up the elevator the ad was.
Oh, joy.
Would we have our Edward Abbeys among the cable maintenance crews? One can hope
SB