Considering the Islamic extremist terrorism activity in India/Pakistan that I've been hearing so much about in the last year or so, I'd hardly consider the countries "stable"; remember, too, that their "cold war" has been a lot less chilly than the USSR/USA one ever was. There have been regular border clashes and military standoffs there for decades.
Speaking as an American, I find I have to agree with you. Believe me tho when I say that most of the average people I know don't think our country is any kind of God-given gift to the world either - although many of us do think it's a pretty damned good place to live (for now:( )
Our Federal government is a huge mess. Unfortunately, nobody knows how to fix it. So we stumble on...
There isn't a mountain in the world high enough that atmospheric drag and heating would be small enough to no longer be a barrier. There is no way any terrestrial based EM launcher can get away without requiring significant additional propulsion for the circulariztion burn. It isn't a matter of politics, it isn't a matter of economics, it's a matter of physics. EM launchers don't work in the real world even remotely like the ones in SF.
Reduction of the costs of the first few kilometers is the whole point of reusable launch vehicles.
Come on, Derek. I know you know better than that.
WRT to EM launch facilities, given sufficient effiencies at the launch site, sufficient volume, and proper design, yes, EM launchers could at least reduce the cost to orbit. Of course, Heinlein didn't foresee some of the advances in technology that would make things like space elevators possible.
What Robert said about the politics and economics of EM launch facilities in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress still stand; if anything, they are more true now then they were then.
His technology was a bit off - the proper way to use it now would be be with reusable boosters for orbital insertion that are given the initial boost to orbit from ground based launching systems; but he wasn't that far off.
WRT to atmospheric heating problems; we've designed systems to deal with that - we did that back in the early days of the Apollo programs, and the same engineering is what brings the shuttle back to earth. Whether you call them ablative heat shields or the more advanced space shuttle tile or bonded ceramics is irrelevant. We already know how to do it. Do you honestly think that reentry heat shields are only applicable to reentry? Come on, now.
As to orbit burns, I believe I already addressed that.
WRT to EM launch systems; they are not impossible; there are better solutions now, maybe; but as a brute force solution, they are workable. An EM "catapult" with rocket assistance to orbit may not be very elegant nor efficient, but it is a workable solution. There are easier ones - most X-stage to orbit solutions require a reusable "first" stage - but my thoughts are that over the lifetime of your vehicles, what would be cheaper? Think infrastructure. Build once or build many times?
In short, I'll agree that EM launch systems are not the best way to launch payloads into LEO. They are definitely still in the running at this point, however - especially when you compare them to the costs of the shuttle. Remember that the EM launcher infrastructure will always be there, while the shuttle launch IFS won't.
For me, however, and what has really got me pissed off, is the long term vs. short term costs.
I think even you might agree that a longterm construction commitment to a launcher in a third world country might be economically and politically more viable right now than another r&d potential with government contractors?
(Not even going to touch the other implications of that one)
Reminds me of Wellstone's campaign, so many years ago...but what that be, is past and done now; and in some respects was past and done long before his death...
Expendable launch vehicles have their uses. So do shuttle type delivery systems. Relying on one or the other to the exclusion of the other is not a smart solution right now, at the technological point we are at. (I'm not sure that it ever will be; ok, strike that, it's just plain stupid)
We put way too many of our eggs into the shuttle basket, so to speak. That has left the US crippled for heavy launch, and for manned launch, capability when the shuttle goes down. Much the same arguments were going around after the Challenger accident - dunno if you remember, but back then the ratio of expenditure wrt to shuttle vs. expendable boosters was much worse than it is now.
We are reaping what we sowed from the decision made back then. The major difference is that we have other options we can pursue now - tech wrt to expendable boosters has boosted (excuse pun) their reliability vastly over what was available back in the 70s when the shuttle was conceived and raped by the beancounters - the tech, and the machining/production capabilities, particularly with respect to CAD/CRC have gone far enough that it invalidates the arguments back then that the shuttle would be an effective solution to orbital delivery.
My point? The point is that if we'd continued to develop the launch capability we already had, and put steady R&D dev into reusable systems, we'd most likely have a system that is a lot more reliable than what we ended up with - and more efficient, besides.
The shuttle system was fought over so much that the best ideas got slaughtered in committee - the best ideas were never funded as they should have been. We *knew* how to R&D advanced flight systems - the AF had been doing it for decades, after all - if we'd simply continued the path we were on, we might have a viable cheap/lb system now.
Instead, the whole process got taken over by the political beancounters, and the payment was Challenger and the media/public mess that resulted.
Oh, fuck, that's even too simplified...
It's late, and I'm drunk, and I really need to get off this subject:) I may very well be preaching to the converted, and if I am, I apologize.
But just to make it ontopic to your post wrt to EM launchers; they are not impractical. Just very, very hard to design, and location is the key. There isn't any reason that we couldn't build an EM launcher up the side of some mountain on the equator (Chile) that serves as a replacement for the hardest part of accelerating a projectile to orbit - it's just not economically, nor politically (!) viable right now.
That's not to say that it won't be, and it wouldn't violate any laws of physics, either. Heinlein wasn't that stupid.
Well, it's actually much more complicated and a lot worse than that, even.:)
But I still think you should be teaching primary school. Maybe with more teachers like you (assuming you survived) we might have an electorate who knew their right hand from their left hand, and the difference (null) between them.
Nah, never happen. That is, people with your skills in describing reality being let loose to teach our young&dumb, that is.
But hey, I can hope, eh? *grin* Cynicism is a *great* survival trait, in nowadays world...
Oh, horseshit. If patents were grandfather removed, perhaps you might have an argument there. But copyrights? No. Most R&D results in patents, not copyrights.
And conversely, as long as there are people who think the way you do, the world will remain the way it is.
There's a world of difference between evil people and defending oneself against the same.
It's not negativity, it's realism.
You're young, aren't you?
(no offense, mind you:)
I wouldn't necessarily call it a strawman; but I do think that you are sheltered enough that you haven't really experienced the human goblin condition yet, that you haven't met any truly nasty people.
May you never. A hopeless wish, but one can still wish...
Rep Boucher is a prime example of how individual politicians can be honest, honorable, and really make a difference. Boucher has been in the news before on slashdot, IIRC opposing RIAA bills and other nonsense. He's someone I'd proudly vote for, if I was from VA.
That said, he's still a Democrat. (I hate the party system too, but it's likely he wouldn't be in office otherwise.):)
So... does this qualify for/dev/null or not? *grin* Fucking demorepublicrats. ("Rats" for short)
You think India -- the world's largest democracy (in terms of population) and a generally civilised and well-educated society -- is a security risk because they (may) have nuclear weapons?
Sperm production does fall off with age, however. How fast depends on the individual. In any case, even tho we mostly *do* continue producing sperm, the viability of those sperm falls off even more rapidly than production does. In any case, I'd have to say that reproduction is likely not a big factor wrt to the use of Viagra - think about it - most people that old are not looking to have kids, they are looking to enjoy life, and aren't likely to reproduce. Seriously, how many people who can afford Viagra at older ages are going to be taking it so they can have four or five more kids? I'd say that in most cases they are taking it so they can enjoy having sex *after* the kids are out of the house. (Being more/less middle aged myself...:)
That also said, is it a bad thing if smart, successful people would want to reproduce as long as they can? (Well, as long as they aren't Bill Gates, but WTH:)
Tell that to the North Koreans, the Palestinians, the old-world Soviets, the Taliban, Muslim extremists, and I could go on and on....
Those people, and others, are exactly why the world is what it is, and why the rest of us feel that we need to be armed and dangerous. Hell, I'm armed and dangerous because I don't want to let some *American* fuckwit think he can walk into my home with impunity and take what's mine or rape my women, or threaten me with impunity.
I understand what you are saying, but it's a seriously naive viewpoint. I just hope it doesn't bite you someday.
The solution is not "lighten up" the solution is to be armed, dangerous and vigilant. Thou shalt not fuck with me, because I am covered in spikes and will hurt you if you try to bite me.
As long as the world is the way it is, there will be people who think the way I do. Thinking that your fellow humans, or the world, will change simply because peace and fellowship is a good idea (it is!) is a dangerously naive viewpoint. It's nice to think that way - while I'm not religious, I pray, in my own way, for that kind of peace everyday - but I'm not fool enough to think that it'll happen in a few generations, or even in hundreds of generations. Even if it did, it might transform humankind into something that stagnates uncontrollably...
All frequencies of electromagnetic radiation can induce "heat" (ie, can accelerate the velocities of the molecules which they impact). They don't need to be infrared photons. The various frequencies of EMR will vary in their effects depending on whether what molecules they hit absorb or reflect the photon in question.
Infrared radiation is particularly effective that way with regards to human bodies because it is at frequencies that are easily absorbed by water molecules, of which we mostly consist.
High energy photons such as xrays and gamma *do* cause heating effects, but those vary depending on the frequency; and wrt to gamma, the molecular dissasociation that occurs dwarfs the heating effects. That doesn't mean that they don't heat up their targets.
No, he didn't, he mentioned it in the text you cited.
A splint *does not* immobilize a break well enough for it to heal properly. I know this from personal experience, having both fashioned one and having been the victim of one (and that didn't heal properly either, the doctors had to rebreak my arm so it could be properly done, so that I wouldn't suffer from arthritis as badly as I do now)
A splint is a good *temporary* measure, but not at all conducive to proper healing of a break.
KGB documents indicate that the Soviet Union kept one such device in the basement of the Soviet Embassy in DC to use as a decapitation weapon in the event of nuclear hostilities.
Somehow I seriously doubt that. Such a weapon, with as little shielding as it would have to have had, would have been easily detectable - and the Soviet Embassy was the target of a lot of scrutiny by the best technology we have ever had (which is much, much better than anything the Soviets ever had).
That said, I HOPE it isn't true - because it would have been monumentally stupid of the USSR to pull such a risky gambit. If it had been discovered (like, say, being detected by a Geiger counter during transport, diplomatic "pouch" or not), it would probably have touched off a war; one with no winners.
Forty years of Cold War bullshit with no nuclear exchange shows in a small way that the Soviets weren't quite stupid enough to do anything that would touch such an exchange off. I simply can't believe it. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such information was buried under "Need to Know" back then...
Slashdot Mirror
The question is the answer.
He's just a moment away from giving the camera the finger.
Next?
SB
Didn't know that. Interesting. T'was twisted who said it in a post a little while back...
Link?
SB
I've also seen switches inside of cases.
In addition, there have been cases that came from cin, but mostly they were divorce cases.
SB
Well, fine, then. You meek can have the earth.
:)
Us skeptics get everything else.
Deal?
SB
1998 wasn't all that long ago:
m
r .h tml
m
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/brief16.ht
(India and Pakistan nukes - lot more than just "claims")
http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/17B_Thaku
(India's "stability")
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/onefive.ht
(tests aren't "unmissable" )
Considering the Islamic extremist terrorism activity in India/Pakistan that I've been hearing so much about in the last year or so, I'd hardly consider the countries "stable"; remember, too, that their "cold war" has been a lot less chilly than the USSR/USA one ever was. There have been regular border clashes and military standoffs there for decades.
SB
Speaking as an American, I find I have to agree with you. Believe me tho when I say that most of the average people I know don't think our country is any kind of God-given gift to the world either - although many of us do think it's a pretty damned good place to live (for now
Our Federal government is a huge mess. Unfortunately, nobody knows how to fix it. So we stumble on...
Cheers
SB
I don't know what country you're living in, but it sure as hell isn't the US. 30%? 70%? Bullshit. 3% and 7% MAYBE.
Or maybe you think the huge public outcry over those pictures has been faked by the media?
SB
I have. You're nuts. No offense. :)
SB
There isn't a mountain in the world high enough that atmospheric drag and heating would be small enough to no longer be a barrier. There is no way any terrestrial based EM launcher can get away without requiring significant additional propulsion for the circulariztion burn. It isn't a matter of politics, it isn't a matter of economics, it's a matter of physics. EM launchers don't work in the real world even remotely like the ones in SF.
Reduction of the costs of the first few kilometers is the whole point of reusable launch vehicles.
Come on, Derek. I know you know better than that.
WRT to EM launch facilities, given sufficient effiencies at the launch site, sufficient volume, and proper design, yes, EM launchers could at least reduce the cost to orbit. Of course, Heinlein didn't foresee some of the advances in technology that would make things like space elevators possible.
What Robert said about the politics and economics of EM launch facilities in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress still stand; if anything, they are more true now then they were then.
His technology was a bit off - the proper way to use it now would be be with reusable boosters for orbital insertion that are given the initial boost to orbit from ground based launching systems; but he wasn't that far off.
WRT to atmospheric heating problems; we've designed systems to deal with that - we did that back in the early days of the Apollo programs, and the same engineering is what brings the shuttle back to earth. Whether you call them ablative heat shields or the more advanced space shuttle tile or bonded ceramics is irrelevant. We already know how to do it. Do you honestly think that reentry heat shields are only applicable to reentry? Come on, now.
As to orbit burns, I believe I already addressed that.
WRT to EM launch systems; they are not impossible; there are better solutions now, maybe; but as a brute force solution, they are workable. An EM "catapult" with rocket assistance to orbit may not be very elegant nor efficient, but it is a workable solution. There are easier ones - most X-stage to orbit solutions require a reusable "first" stage - but my thoughts are that over the lifetime of your vehicles, what would be cheaper? Think infrastructure. Build once or build many times?
In short, I'll agree that EM launch systems are not the best way to launch payloads into LEO. They are definitely still in the running at this point, however - especially when you compare them to the costs of the shuttle. Remember that the EM launcher infrastructure will always be there, while the shuttle launch IFS won't.
For me, however, and what has really got me pissed off, is the long term vs. short term costs.
I think even you might agree that a longterm construction commitment to a launcher in a third world country might be economically and politically more viable right now than another r&d potential with government contractors?
(Not even going to touch the other implications of that one)
SB
Reminds me of Wellstone's campaign, so many years ago...but what that be, is past and done now; and in some respects was past and done long before his death...
SB
But....that was my point.
That even tho he belongs to a political party, I still respect him, because he gets the damned job done.
However, if he'd run on an independent platform, it's not likely he'd be in office, is it? (I fucking hate having to say that, but it's true)
Guess I'm being too subtle... blame a quarter century of watching the bullshit get deeper. One develops an immunity of a kind...
SB
I'll comment a bit on this, if I may:
:) I may very well be preaching to the converted, and if I am, I apologize.
Expendable launch vehicles have their uses. So do shuttle type delivery systems. Relying on one or the other to the exclusion of the other is not a smart solution right now, at the technological point we are at. (I'm not sure that it ever will be; ok, strike that, it's just plain stupid)
We put way too many of our eggs into the shuttle basket, so to speak. That has left the US crippled for heavy launch, and for manned launch, capability when the shuttle goes down. Much the same arguments were going around after the Challenger accident - dunno if you remember, but back then the ratio of expenditure wrt to shuttle vs. expendable boosters was much worse than it is now.
We are reaping what we sowed from the decision made back then. The major difference is that we have other options we can pursue now - tech wrt to expendable boosters has boosted (excuse pun) their reliability vastly over what was available back in the 70s when the shuttle was conceived and raped by the beancounters - the tech, and the machining/production capabilities, particularly with respect to CAD/CRC have gone far enough that it invalidates the arguments back then that the shuttle would be an effective solution to orbital delivery.
My point? The point is that if we'd continued to develop the launch capability we already had, and put steady R&D dev into reusable systems, we'd most likely have a system that is a lot more reliable than what we ended up with - and more efficient, besides.
The shuttle system was fought over so much that the best ideas got slaughtered in committee - the best ideas were never funded as they should have been. We *knew* how to R&D advanced flight systems - the AF had been doing it for decades, after all - if we'd simply continued the path we were on, we might have a viable cheap/lb system now.
Instead, the whole process got taken over by the political beancounters, and the payment was Challenger and the media/public mess that resulted.
Oh, fuck, that's even too simplified...
It's late, and I'm drunk, and I really need to get off this subject
But just to make it ontopic to your post wrt to EM launchers; they are not impractical. Just very, very hard to design, and location is the key. There isn't any reason that we couldn't build an EM launcher up the side of some mountain on the equator (Chile) that serves as a replacement for the hardest part of accelerating a projectile to orbit - it's just not economically, nor politically (!) viable right now.
That's not to say that it won't be, and it wouldn't violate any laws of physics, either. Heinlein wasn't that stupid.
SB
Well, it's actually much more complicated and a lot worse than that, even.
But I still think you should be teaching primary school. Maybe with more teachers like you (assuming you survived) we might have an electorate who knew their right hand from their left hand, and the difference (null) between them.
Nah, never happen. That is, people with your skills in describing reality being let loose to teach our young&dumb, that is.
But hey, I can hope, eh? *grin* Cynicism is a *great* survival trait, in nowadays world...
Great post! Thank'e!
SB
Repealing copyright would render trillions of dollars of capital in our economy worthless.
I don't know where you are getting your "figures" from, but copyright law does not guarantee trillions of dollars of capital in our economy.
If you were arguing patents, I might understand - tho I'd have a problem with your figures being around an order of magnitude too big - but WTF.
Why do I feel like IHBT? By an RIAA industry rep?
Many humble apologies, sir, but you are full of shit.
SB
Oh, horseshit. If patents were grandfather removed, perhaps you might have an argument there. But copyrights? No. Most R&D results in patents, not copyrights.
SB
And conversely, as long as there are people who think the way you do, the world will remain the way it is.
:)
There's a world of difference between evil people and defending oneself against the same.
It's not negativity, it's realism.
You're young, aren't you?
(no offense, mind you
I wouldn't necessarily call it a strawman; but I do think that you are sheltered enough that you haven't really experienced the human goblin condition yet, that you haven't met any truly nasty people.
May you never. A hopeless wish, but one can still wish...
SB
Rep Boucher is a prime example of how individual politicians can be honest, honorable, and really make a difference. Boucher has been in the news before on slashdot, IIRC opposing RIAA bills and other nonsense. He's someone I'd proudly vote for, if I was from VA.
:)
/dev/null or not? *grin* Fucking demorepublicrats. ("Rats" for short)
That said, he's still a Democrat. (I hate the party system too, but it's likely he wouldn't be in office otherwise.)
So... does this qualify for
SB
You think India -- the world's largest democracy (in terms of population) and a generally civilised and well-educated society -- is a security risk because they (may) have nuclear weapons?
May have??
India conducted it's first nuclear test in 1974.
SB
Nonium
I think I made some of that in the microwave the other day. At least, nobody around here would approach it closely.
SB
Sperm production does fall off with age, however. How fast depends on the individual. In any case, even tho we mostly *do* continue producing sperm, the viability of those sperm falls off even more rapidly than production does. In any case, I'd have to say that reproduction is likely not a big factor wrt to the use of Viagra - think about it - most people that old are not looking to have kids, they are looking to enjoy life, and aren't likely to reproduce. Seriously, how many people who can afford Viagra at older ages are going to be taking it so they can have four or five more kids? I'd say that in most cases they are taking it so they can enjoy having sex *after* the kids are out of the house. (Being more/less middle aged myself... :)
:)
That also said, is it a bad thing if smart, successful people would want to reproduce as long as they can? (Well, as long as they aren't Bill Gates, but WTH
Great posts, BTW.
SB
Tell that to the North Koreans, the Palestinians, the old-world Soviets, the Taliban, Muslim extremists, and I could go on and on....
Those people, and others, are exactly why the world is what it is, and why the rest of us feel that we need to be armed and dangerous. Hell, I'm armed and dangerous because I don't want to let some *American* fuckwit think he can walk into my home with impunity and take what's mine or rape my women, or threaten me with impunity.
I understand what you are saying, but it's a seriously naive viewpoint. I just hope it doesn't bite you someday.
The solution is not "lighten up" the solution is to be armed, dangerous and vigilant. Thou shalt not fuck with me, because I am covered in spikes and will hurt you if you try to bite me.
As long as the world is the way it is, there will be people who think the way I do. Thinking that your fellow humans, or the world, will change simply because peace and fellowship is a good idea (it is!) is a dangerously naive viewpoint. It's nice to think that way - while I'm not religious, I pray, in my own way, for that kind of peace everyday - but I'm not fool enough to think that it'll happen in a few generations, or even in hundreds of generations. Even if it did, it might transform humankind into something that stagnates uncontrollably...
SB
All frequencies of electromagnetic radiation can induce "heat" (ie, can accelerate the velocities of the molecules which they impact). They don't need to be infrared photons. The various frequencies of EMR will vary in their effects depending on whether what molecules they hit absorb or reflect the photon in question.
Infrared radiation is particularly effective that way with regards to human bodies because it is at frequencies that are easily absorbed by water molecules, of which we mostly consist.
High energy photons such as xrays and gamma *do* cause heating effects, but those vary depending on the frequency; and wrt to gamma, the molecular dissasociation that occurs dwarfs the heating effects. That doesn't mean that they don't heat up their targets.
SB
No, he didn't, he mentioned it in the text you cited.
A splint *does not* immobilize a break well enough for it to heal properly. I know this from personal experience, having both fashioned one and having been the victim of one (and that didn't heal properly either, the doctors had to rebreak my arm so it could be properly done, so that I wouldn't suffer from arthritis as badly as I do now)
A splint is a good *temporary* measure, but not at all conducive to proper healing of a break.
SB
Then you should go read some history. Most of the textbooks which cover this are not online, but you could start here.
Yeah, it's a lot to read...but there's a surprising amount of information in those links.
SB
KGB documents indicate that the Soviet Union kept one such device in the basement of the Soviet Embassy in DC to use as a decapitation weapon in the event of nuclear hostilities.
Somehow I seriously doubt that. Such a weapon, with as little shielding as it would have to have had, would have been easily detectable - and the Soviet Embassy was the target of a lot of scrutiny by the best technology we have ever had (which is much, much better than anything the Soviets ever had).
That said, I HOPE it isn't true - because it would have been monumentally stupid of the USSR to pull such a risky gambit. If it had been discovered (like, say, being detected by a Geiger counter during transport, diplomatic "pouch" or not), it would probably have touched off a war; one with no winners.
Forty years of Cold War bullshit with no nuclear exchange shows in a small way that the Soviets weren't quite stupid enough to do anything that would touch such an exchange off. I simply can't believe it. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such information was buried under "Need to Know" back then...
SB