OK, then put it in a Mars-friendly Earth orbit, check, accellerate. No ISS, so in the current No-shuttle-mission-unless-it-goes-to-ISS climate it's not ideal, but hey. Extra fuel necessary: 0 Accelleration when leaving EO can be limited: just use a smaller engine, but the same amount of fuel, so the lower accelleration is compensated for by the longer burn time.
They could have launched it to rendezvous with ISS, and then deploy everything (once it's in space, there's no more need for a nosecone), test the whole contraption and send it on its way. That way they could have done something if deployment had failed.
I'd also hesitate calling it torture, but for different reasons. Just connecting a PSU to a load (even if it's run at 100% of available power) isn't much of a torture in my book. I see no mention of testing with peak loads, nonresistive loads, testing in hostile environments (crank up the ambient temperature to 50 deg C), etc. That would be torture.
So PMPO is 'honest' but meaningless? What good is a specification that has no bearing on the real-world performance of a system? PMPO is so close to being 'a number I pulled out of my ass' that 'scam' isn't too strong a word for it.
I know. But with an online map you can do things you can't do with paper. Say you pick a projection where distortion is minimized in the center of the map. With a paper map, the center is fixed. With an online map, you can define several 'centers' and switch between them. In effect you'd no longer be limited to a single 'point of view'. For instance, if you pan to the North on the US map, you now run into a horribly-mangled Canada. You could instead change the point of view when you pan across the border.
Why bother? Maps on a PC are cool and all, but not very useful when you're in a car. If you use a PC in the car, the software needs to be runnable without an internet connection, it needs a GPS interface, and it needs to be able to generate spoken and visual directions. Once you go to those lengths, a dedicated naviation system, or a PDA-based system is a better choice (doesn't take up as much space, etc.) And printing the directions and taking them with you just doesn't cut it. That's the worst of both worlds: no situational awareness because you've got a low-res nonzoomable map, plus directions that may be flawed, and no way to correct the directions while driving.
1. only one continent 2. Canada is empty (OK, not too far off) 3. The center of the world is Coffeyville, Kansas 4. Nice choice of map - see the distortion at the top. That's one thing you should be able to avoid online.
Upgradeable manuals are beginning to gain popularity. See the Take Control series of books, for instance. The upgrades are electronic (PDF) instead of dead tree, and that's what makes the upgrade feasible: - shipping an upgrade of the whole book, on paper, would make the upgrade as expensive as the original book. - shipping a 'binder format' doesn't work either (other post have detailed why not). With a PDF, you can include the whole book, properly updated (with correct TOC, index and cross-references), for very little cost.
Online formats (be it PDF or pure online formats like HTML or a Help file) make more sense for a reference manual than paper, anyway. For this kind of information, the extra features you gain (full-text search, clickable links, copy-and-paste of code snippets etc.) outweigh the 'read from cover to cover' comfort factor a paper book has.
1. You just multiplied the per-page price. Instead of using stock paper, you'll have to custom-produce it. It also won't fit in a standard press anymore.
3. Except that the cost of offering separate chapters isn't a percentage of offering the complete book. Let's say there are 10 chapters. Offering all of them means you get to pay initial costs (setup cost for the press, production of the source, etc.) ten times instead of one. Also, with loose-leaf chapters you get more overhead: the chapters need more handling to make them transport-ready, etc. The logistics are a nightmare. A bookstore will have to keep track of 10 items instead of one.
4. That page numbering system sucks. Finding page 237 is a whole lot easier than finding page 5.42. And that still leaves you with the point the grandparent made: supplying a book in multiple page sizes is a pain (telling someone he can find the information on "page 237" isn't going to work because he may have a different-sized edition).
Also, when offering per-chapter updates: 5. Cross-references between chapters are no longer possible, because you can't be sure which version of a chapter the customer will have.
I've used a system like this. I had to produce addenda for naval electronics: the kind of system that has several meters of shelf space worth of documentation. Producing the incremental updates, plus a change log (to tell the customer where the new pages were supposed to go) was a PITA and cost a lot of time, and engineers returning from site visits would tell us the documentation upgrades would invariably end up stacked on a shelf, instead of being added to the binder. Eventually we started shipping whole manuals instead, even if only 10 pages out of 1000 were changed.
they're going to have to modernize No. They need reliable equipment, not necessarily bleeding-edge technology. The problem is that things like ICs have a production/upgrade cycle that's shorter than the lead time for a spacecraft. The same goes e.g. for military aircraft and missiles: by the time an IC is tested sufficiently for military or space use, it's out of production. This is why the US govt keeps an old CPU production line (80386?) open, and why Nasa trolls eBay.
A reasonable argument, but the US usually goes over the top (see 'NIH syndrome', e.g. when purchasing military hardware). What would be sensible? Buying something off-the-shelf, or spending 10x as much to duplicate the Russian effort? If you insist on putting money into the US economy, buy a license.
You're joking, right? Without 'advancing science in general', we'd end up runnning out of solutions for 'concrete problems'. E.g. nuclear power stations wouldn't have been possible without Einstein et al. doing pie-in-the-sky, way-out-there purely theoretical research.
No. The X-prize parameters were set so you'd avoid many of the Big Problems in building a spacecraft. SS1's max speed was about Mach 3, way less than reentry speed of an orbital craft. This means SS1's designers didn't need to worry about heat shielding. Also, the thermal loads on the structure are less than on an orbital craft. And with the short flights of SS1 you can get away with a lower fuel fraction than is needed to achieve orbt.
In view of the amazing innovations we've seen in recent years (ie none), I'd say the long-term effect isn't going to be shocking. Even $1.5B is plenty for "Redmond, start your photocopiers".
A radar isn't a low-power device, especially at the range you'll need (calculating the volume you'll have to scan is left as an excercise to the reader). Simple navigation/weather radars (range: 200 km) require hundreds of W. An omnidirectional antenna doesn't give you information on the direction of the signals (which you need), and relying on 'reflected transmissions'? How would you differentiate between reflections and sources?
Why would it be easier? The edges of the solar system aren't any closer in the +/-Z direction than along the plane. And moving in the plane gives you benefits as mentioned in other posts. Interference from planets? Not likely, as long as you don't aim the probe to graze Pluto just before the Big Moment.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, that's joke.
The graphite dust you create by using a pencil is a good enough conductor to cause electrical problems.
OK, then put it in a Mars-friendly Earth orbit, check, accellerate. No ISS, so in the current No-shuttle-mission-unless-it-goes-to-ISS climate it's not ideal, but hey.
Extra fuel necessary: 0
Accelleration when leaving EO can be limited: just use a smaller engine, but the same amount of fuel, so the lower accelleration is compensated for by the longer burn time.
They could have launched it to rendezvous with ISS, and then deploy everything (once it's in space, there's no more need for a nosecone), test the whole contraption and send it on its way.
That way they could have done something if deployment had failed.
I'd also hesitate calling it torture, but for different reasons.
Just connecting a PSU to a load (even if it's run at 100% of available power) isn't much of a torture in my book.
I see no mention of testing with peak loads, nonresistive loads, testing in hostile environments (crank up the ambient temperature to 50 deg C), etc. That would be torture.
So PMPO is 'honest' but meaningless? What good is a specification that has no bearing on the real-world performance of a system? PMPO is so close to being 'a number I pulled out of my ass' that 'scam' isn't too strong a word for it.
I know. But with an online map you can do things you can't do with paper.
Say you pick a projection where distortion is minimized in the center of the map. With a paper map, the center is fixed. With an online map, you can define several 'centers' and switch between them. In effect you'd no longer be limited to a single 'point of view'.
For instance, if you pan to the North on the US map, you now run into a horribly-mangled Canada. You could instead change the point of view when you pan across the border.
noise measurements. A l33t PSU is no good if it sets up a howling gale in my room.
[mode=nitpick]
It's "Lookenspeepers". The Gothic script version seems to be spelled wrong in a number of places.
Why bother? Maps on a PC are cool and all, but not very useful when you're in a car.
If you use a PC in the car, the software needs to be runnable without an internet connection, it needs a GPS interface, and it needs to be able to generate spoken and visual directions.
Once you go to those lengths, a dedicated naviation system, or a PDA-based system is a better choice (doesn't take up as much space, etc.)
And printing the directions and taking them with you just doesn't cut it. That's the worst of both worlds: no situational awareness because you've got a low-res nonzoomable map, plus directions that may be flawed, and no way to correct the directions while driving.
1. only one continent
2. Canada is empty (OK, not too far off)
3. The center of the world is Coffeyville, Kansas
4. Nice choice of map - see the distortion at the top. That's one thing you should be able to avoid online.
Good thing it's a beta, then...
Planet X
Ah, but then we'd have to send...
Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century!!!
Upgradeable manuals are beginning to gain popularity. See the Take Control series of books, for instance.
The upgrades are electronic (PDF) instead of dead tree, and that's what makes the upgrade feasible:
- shipping an upgrade of the whole book, on paper, would make the upgrade as expensive as the original book.
- shipping a 'binder format' doesn't work either (other post have detailed why not).
With a PDF, you can include the whole book, properly updated (with correct TOC, index and cross-references), for very little cost.
Online formats (be it PDF or pure online formats like HTML or a Help file) make more sense for a reference manual than paper, anyway. For this kind of information, the extra features you gain (full-text search, clickable links, copy-and-paste of code snippets etc.) outweigh the 'read from cover to cover' comfort factor a paper book has.
1. You just multiplied the per-page price. Instead of using stock paper, you'll have to custom-produce it. It also won't fit in a standard press anymore.
3. Except that the cost of offering separate chapters isn't a percentage of offering the complete book. Let's say there are 10 chapters. Offering all of them means you get to pay initial costs (setup cost for the press, production of the source, etc.) ten times instead of one. Also, with loose-leaf chapters you get more overhead: the chapters need more handling to make them transport-ready, etc.
The logistics are a nightmare. A bookstore will have to keep track of 10 items instead of one.
4. That page numbering system sucks. Finding page 237 is a whole lot easier than finding page 5.42.
And that still leaves you with the point the grandparent made: supplying a book in multiple page sizes is a pain (telling someone he can find the information on "page 237" isn't going to work because he may have a different-sized edition).
Also, when offering per-chapter updates:
5. Cross-references between chapters are no longer possible, because you can't be sure which version of a chapter the customer will have.
I've used a system like this. I had to produce addenda for naval electronics: the kind of system that has several meters of shelf space worth of documentation. Producing the incremental updates, plus a change log (to tell the customer where the new pages were supposed to go) was a PITA and cost a lot of time, and engineers returning from site visits would tell us the documentation upgrades would invariably end up stacked on a shelf, instead of being added to the binder. Eventually we started shipping whole manuals instead, even if only 10 pages out of 1000 were changed.
(Yes, I am a writer)
they're going to have to modernize
No. They need reliable equipment, not necessarily bleeding-edge technology. The problem is that things like ICs have a production/upgrade cycle that's shorter than the lead time for a spacecraft.
The same goes e.g. for military aircraft and missiles: by the time an IC is tested sufficiently for military or space use, it's out of production.
This is why the US govt keeps an old CPU production line (80386?) open, and why Nasa trolls eBay.
That's assuming "people" understand HTML. Hint: Most computer users don't.
Mitsubishi is already involved in the Japanese space program, producing e.g. rocket engines. No cookie-cutter production techniques there, though.
A reasonable argument, but the US usually goes over the top (see 'NIH syndrome', e.g. when purchasing military hardware).
What would be sensible? Buying something off-the-shelf, or spending 10x as much to duplicate the Russian effort? If you insist on putting money into the US economy, buy a license.
If you build something that relies on ISS, you're limiting yourself to ISS' orbit. Hubble would be unreachable.
You're joking, right? Without 'advancing science in general', we'd end up runnning out of solutions for 'concrete problems'.
E.g. nuclear power stations wouldn't have been possible without Einstein et al. doing pie-in-the-sky, way-out-there purely theoretical research.
Maybe Nasa should use the Energia for that. 100 tons into LEO, and development's already done.
No. The X-prize parameters were set so you'd avoid many of the Big Problems in building a spacecraft. SS1's max speed was about Mach 3, way less than reentry speed of an orbital craft. This means SS1's designers didn't need to worry about heat shielding. Also, the thermal loads on the structure are less than on an orbital craft.
And with the short flights of SS1 you can get away with a lower fuel fraction than is needed to achieve orbt.
In view of the amazing innovations we've seen in recent years (ie none), I'd say the long-term effect isn't going to be shocking.
Even $1.5B is plenty for "Redmond, start your photocopiers".
Plutonium nuclear batteries (RTG) alone would cost most of [$134M]
Good grief. Why are RTGs so expensive?
A radar isn't a low-power device, especially at the range you'll need (calculating the volume you'll have to scan is left as an excercise to the reader). Simple navigation/weather radars (range: 200 km) require hundreds of W.
An omnidirectional antenna doesn't give you information on the direction of the signals (which you need), and relying on 'reflected transmissions'? How would you differentiate between reflections and sources?
Why would it be easier? The edges of the solar system aren't any closer in the +/-Z direction than along the plane. And moving in the plane gives you benefits as mentioned in other posts.
Interference from planets? Not likely, as long as you don't aim the probe to graze Pluto just before the Big Moment.