VLBI fans, rejoice ! Really, after the Japanese VSOP mission, it has been a long wait for this one (first proposed in the 1980's). Together with antennas on the ground, RadioAstron should provide the highest resolution of any human telescope, anywhere, at any wavelength. (Here are some more technical details.)
The USA pioneered the use of this technology (the first space VLBI, in the 1980's, used a NASA TDRSS communication satellite that was underused after the Challenger disaster), and Irwin Shapiro suggested putting VLBI terminals on the Moon well before that, but here is another case where the USA can't seem to actually get its stuff into the orbit.
As I posted above, most scientific probes now are data-rate limited. They could acquire more data, but they can't send it back, due to data-rate and Earth-side antenna-availability limitations. So, yes, there is a strong demand for higher bandwidth.
There is as yet no interplanetary communication by Laser. It's all done by radio at present. The first flight demonstration of Laser communication will be on the LADEE Lunar Orbiter. That's scheduled to be launched in 2012. I am sure that optical communications will eventually be used, though. Using reasonably sized telescopes, gigabit per second communication across interplanetary distances should be possible using conventional techniques, even if OAM is not actually practical. (Of course, the weather would be an issue, as laser signals can't go through clouds.)
Given that more or less the same thing could have been and was said about deep space optical communications in the mid-1980's, all I can say is that it sure is taking a long time to implement it.
NASA has, over time, become more and more dominated by the people who want to spend money on stuff, as opposed to the people who want to do stuff. This is not just increasing bureaucratization, but a form of corruption that the US government is prone to across the board. I have heard it naked expressed that the real purpose of NASA is to make sure certain DOD contractors make a profit.
In other words, and to be blunt, building things shovels money into the pockets of politically well connected contractors. Running things, not so much.
However, the flip side of this is that it is much easier to shut down a not-yet-built program, than to shut down an existing one. So, the Hubble Space Telescope (which is still functioning well, and could probably be kept going for decades), is viewed as obsolete, and is shut down by NASA managers. The Webb (which is not intended for on-orbit servicing, and so will only last 5 years or so), is beloved by NASA managers, but is an obvious target for cost-cutters in the Congress. What's worse to me is that, if it is funded and launched, it will probably be late, and will die well before any replacement, thus causing huge gaps in our ability to observe from above the atmosphere.
I think that end-of-lifing of the Hubble ST is a major strategic blunder by NASA - just try getting that money re-established now. As far as what is to be done, I am not sure. I wish that we would stop electing so many bought and paid for politicians, though. That would be a start.
The cost per unserved household has a big weasel word - "unserved." Considering the source, I'm surprised that they didn't declare that there were no "unserved" households in the state at all, which would drive that cost to infinity. They may have thought that an infinite cost wouldn't be as believable.
Doesn't the shuttle basically pilot itself at this point? Then again, I suppose you have a whole different sort of issues if your autopilot starts drinking...
From what I hear the pilots have a lot to do on landing and you would not them to be too distracted during their no-power, one-pass-only, dead-stick landing.
(BTW, I have found that telling pilots who have to train for years to fly something that it "basically pilots itself" is not a good conversation starter.)
On the ISS, by the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (Section 5.2), each country's law applies in the section it supplies. The American's do not allow alcohol in their sections, but I guess in the ESA and Russian modules, wine would be OK. Now, if we could just get the Dutch to launch a module, the astronauts could also enjoy some hash, which I am sure would be good for... something.
"The specific power of the proton-triggered boron fuel would be so great that a mere mole of it (11 grams) would yield roughly 300 megawatts of power."
A Watt is a joule / second, i.e., energy / second. A given amount of material to fuse (such as a mole) can only provide a given amount of energy. So, a mole of something cannot just yield watts. It can yield watts for some period of time, or a mole per second (or per some other period of time) can yield watts, but, as written, the article can't be correct.
Of course. Just wearing a standard dosimeter in your shirt pocket is not enough. According to the patent the beam size is ~ 6 mm; I wouldn't be too surprised if it was somewhat smaller in the actual devices (as the beam size sets the pixel size). I would worry a lot about two things
- a software problem causes the beam to dwell somewhere. (This has happened for medical imaging devices, with bad results.)
- A repeated reflection causes repeated exposures to some particular spot. If you are standing in that spot, you are in trouble.
I actually talked about this with a TSA agent recently (during a pat-down). The trouble is that the X-ray "spot" in the scanners is actually fairly intense; the scanning machines are only safe if the spot in kept in motion., as it is supposed to be when in use. (The scanner is doing a raster scan, and looking for backscatter.) If there is any internal reflection, then someone outside the machine (i.e., a TSA agent) could get repeated exposures, which would not be good. The same might be true if people in the scanners had reflections from buttons or other metal items. It seems unlikely, but the only way to be sure is to measure it.
I've only been hearing about this for, what, about 30 years. I imagine cost is the crucial factor, as otherwise some of those other startups would be ubiquitous now.
Even in this case, the article says "CEO Fink wouldn't reveal his system's cost per watt," so I bet cost is still a factor.
Not entirely, but there are steps that can be taken to help insure that non e-votes are counted properly. Those steps are not available for e-voting, and I frankly do not think that the American political system is mature enough to be trusted with it.
Different threat models. The threat model for e-banking is that someone will steal your money, which you can independently audit. The threat model for e-voting is that someone will steal your vote, which you cannot independently audit.
Hulu was born with a fault line running through its foundation : It was owned by major content owners. Yes, that means it gets good terms on content (and, can make deals at all). Yes, it means it gets free advertising on major networks. However, its owners don't really want it to succeed. They view it as a fundamental threat.
Under a new owner, Hulu would likely shrink dramatically (less content, less advertising). However, it will be free to innovate, which is probably necessary for its long term survival. So, over all, I view this as likely to be a good thing for Hulu, and for viewers.
Australia's problems with high-speed Internet can be summed up in one word: Margaret.
Margaret is a carrier pigeon that raced the nation's biggest broadband service to send a 700 megabit file over a distance of 132 km (82 miles) -- a televised contest that Margaret, with a memory stick taped to her leg, won easily.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if some in the government are pushing for these stringent measures because they think it will save the country.
No, its because they used to work for these industries, and they expect to go back once their stint in government is done.
This is corruption. It may not be technically illegal, but it's still corruption, all the same.
VLBI fans, rejoice ! Really, after the Japanese VSOP mission, it has been a long wait for this one (first proposed in the 1980's). Together with antennas on the ground, RadioAstron should provide the highest resolution of any human telescope, anywhere, at any wavelength. (Here are some more technical details.)
The USA pioneered the use of this technology (the first space VLBI, in the 1980's, used a NASA TDRSS communication satellite that was underused after the Challenger disaster), and Irwin Shapiro suggested putting VLBI terminals on the Moon well before that, but here is another case where the USA can't seem to actually get its stuff into the orbit.
As I posted above, most scientific probes now are data-rate limited. They could acquire more data, but they can't send it back, due to data-rate and Earth-side antenna-availability limitations. So, yes, there is a strong demand for higher bandwidth.
Because most space probes now-a-days are data rate limited. LRO, MRO, Dawn, etc., all could take more data, if we could get it back.
There is as yet no interplanetary communication by Laser. It's all done by radio at present. The first flight demonstration of Laser communication will be on the LADEE Lunar Orbiter. That's scheduled to be launched in 2012. I am sure that optical communications will eventually be used, though. Using reasonably sized telescopes, gigabit per second communication across interplanetary distances should be possible using conventional techniques, even if OAM is not actually practical. (Of course, the weather would be an issue, as laser signals can't go through clouds.)
Given that more or less the same thing could have been and was said about deep space optical communications in the mid-1980's, all I can say is that it sure is taking a long time to implement it.
I can believe it. Have you looked at our politics lately ?
NASA has, over time, become more and more dominated by the people who want to spend money on stuff, as opposed to the people who want to do stuff. This is not just increasing bureaucratization, but a form of corruption that the US government is prone to across the board. I have heard it naked expressed that the real purpose of NASA is to make sure certain DOD contractors make a profit.
In other words, and to be blunt, building things shovels money into the pockets of politically well connected contractors. Running things, not so much.
However, the flip side of this is that it is much easier to shut down a not-yet-built program, than to shut down an existing one. So, the Hubble Space Telescope (which is still functioning well, and could probably be kept going for decades), is viewed as obsolete, and is shut down by NASA managers. The Webb (which is not intended for on-orbit servicing, and so will only last 5 years or so), is beloved by NASA managers, but is an obvious target for cost-cutters in the Congress. What's worse to me is that, if it is funded and launched, it will probably be late, and will die well before any replacement, thus causing huge gaps in our ability to observe from above the atmosphere.
I think that end-of-lifing of the Hubble ST is a major strategic blunder by NASA - just try getting that money re-established now. As far as what is to be done, I am not sure. I wish that we would stop electing so many bought and paid for politicians, though. That would be a start.
The cost per unserved household has a big weasel word - "unserved." Considering the source, I'm surprised that they didn't declare that there were no "unserved" households in the state at all, which would drive that cost to infinity. They may have thought that an infinite cost wouldn't be as believable.
The TVA got it worse, not to mention the WPA.
Any security claim that is solely motivated by child pornography I regard as bogus. Been to that well a few too many times.
Doesn't the shuttle basically pilot itself at this point? Then again, I suppose you have a whole different sort of issues if your autopilot starts drinking...
From what I hear the pilots have a lot to do on landing and you would not them to be too distracted during their no-power, one-pass-only, dead-stick landing.
(BTW, I have found that telling pilots who have to train for years to fly something that it "basically pilots itself" is not a good conversation starter.)
On the ISS, by the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (Section 5.2), each country's law applies in the section it supplies. The American's do not allow alcohol in their sections, but I guess in the ESA and Russian modules, wine would be OK. Now, if we could just get the Dutch to launch a module, the astronauts could also enjoy some hash, which I am sure would be good for... something.
The article is simply wrong.
"The specific power of the proton-triggered boron fuel would be so great that a mere mole of it (11 grams) would yield roughly 300 megawatts of power."
A Watt is a joule / second, i.e., energy / second. A given amount of material to fuse (such as a mole) can only provide a given amount of energy. So, a mole of something cannot just yield watts. It can yield watts for some period of time, or a mole per second (or per some other period of time) can yield watts, but, as written, the article can't be correct.
As an American, I can tell you that cellphone coverage in the USA isn't universal. There are regions where there simply isn't coverage.
Of course. Just wearing a standard dosimeter in your shirt pocket is not enough. According to the patent the beam size is ~ 6 mm; I wouldn't be too surprised if it was somewhat smaller in the actual devices (as the beam size sets the pixel size). I would worry a lot about two things
- a software problem causes the beam to dwell somewhere. (This has happened for medical imaging devices, with bad results.)
- A repeated reflection causes repeated exposures to some particular spot. If you are standing in that spot, you are in trouble.
I actually talked about this with a TSA agent recently (during a pat-down). The trouble is that the X-ray "spot" in the scanners is actually fairly intense; the scanning machines are only safe if the spot in kept in motion., as it is supposed to be when in use. (The scanner is doing a raster scan, and looking for backscatter.) If there is any internal reflection, then someone outside the machine (i.e., a TSA agent) could get repeated exposures, which would not be good. The same might be true if people in the scanners had reflections from buttons or other metal items. It seems unlikely, but the only way to be sure is to measure it.
Really, I am curious. Does this surprise anyone ?
I've only been hearing about this for, what, about 30 years. I imagine cost is the crucial factor, as otherwise some of those other startups would be ubiquitous now.
Even in this case, the article says "CEO Fink wouldn't reveal his system's cost per watt ," so I bet cost is still a factor.
Can you trust non e-voting either?
Not entirely, but there are steps that can be taken to help insure that non e-votes are counted properly. Those steps are not available for e-voting, and I frankly do not think that the American political system is mature enough to be trusted with it.
Different threat models. The threat model for e-banking is that someone will steal your money, which you can independently audit. The threat model for e-voting is that someone will steal your vote, which you cannot independently audit.
Hulu was born with a fault line running through its foundation : It was owned by major content owners. Yes, that means it gets good terms on content (and, can make deals at all). Yes, it means it gets free advertising on major networks. However, its owners don't really want it to succeed. They view it as a fundamental threat.
Under a new owner, Hulu would likely shrink dramatically (less content, less advertising). However, it will be free to innovate, which is probably necessary for its long term survival. So, over all, I view this as likely to be a good thing for Hulu, and for viewers.
I guess so. Had made the connection before now.
Use a carrier pigeon :
Australia's problems with high-speed Internet can be summed up in one word: Margaret.
Margaret is a carrier pigeon that raced the nation's biggest broadband service to send a 700 megabit file over a distance of 132 km (82 miles) -- a televised contest that Margaret, with a memory stick taped to her leg, won easily.
Most video streaming services offer HTTP so they can get through firewalls. We are moving to a "port 80" world.
(It's today.)