Mass fraction issues: spacedev is planning on using same tech for an orbital launcher, I'm not privy to the details but they are in process of resovling those issues. I'm pretty sure it won't be SSTO, it will use hybrid engines. Check out their "Streaker" vehicle design - yes it's press-ware for now but they are actively working on orbital launchers. Whatever the solution, they have something to solve the mass fraction issues.
>Yes, SSMEs may be a bit overboard. However, 250 ISP and heavy tanks just plain doesn't reach orbit, either.
True, but SpaceDev is working on it. So are Rutan/Scaled/tspace, SpaceX, XCOR and several other small shops. All their engines are simpler than SSME, RS68, etc. Of the big corps, there are several examples of new simplified (liquid) engines. CAD/CAM and new materials seem to allow better, simpler engines.
>Enough said: LUNAR module engine. We're not talking about entering lunar orbit - we're talking about entering EARTH orbit and beyond. The challenge is vastly greater, and a SS1-style engine doesn't come close to cutting it.
The Northrop TR106 650,000 lb thrust engine is based on their lunar ascent engine, not the Apollo CSM engine. The new engine seems large enough to serve in a primary stage of a launch vehicle. OK, so I might have over-sold the parts count, but it is vastly simpler than other extremely large engines like SSME and F1. The description below indicates that it has a single pintle injector.
better photo and description:
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/media/ImageInf o. cfm?ImageID=46
>P.S. - While hybrids in general are less explosive than solid rockets
On failures - not sure how much catastrophic testing they did, but it was enough to fly successfully many times. They are both creating a new field/era of flight and doing some barnstorming. Yes, it's dangerous but they are a media product as well as Square Jawed Engineers. They probably shouldn't be lecturing anyone on safety.
Hybrids generally - the biggest safety issue with hybrids seems to be fuel lodging in the motor's nozzle. This happened on an SS1 flight (13p, I think), it caused a loud bang and dented part of the engine cowling. The appeal for manned flights is that when they fail, it is not a catastrophic failure. Unlike liquids or solids.
As it stands, though, none of this changes the fact that the only manned spaceflight program functioning in the US is based around Burt Rutan.
>It's little more than a pressurized tank hooked to a ball valve that flows past an igniter into a tube filled with rubber, where gasses then expand into a nozzle and bell. A *real* rocket engine, one that can actually get you somewhere, is a hundred times more complex.
I know Jim Benson, had dinner with him a few months ago, and I can assure you that his engines have the potential for Earth to orbit applications. That you would diss on the SpaceDev hybrid motor like that shows that you don't know what you think you know. They have the mass fraction, thrust and unlike other rocket motors are restartable and non-explosive. Think about how much that can change the economics of spaceflight. The future is clearly with simpler engines, not complex monsters like the SSME. Even Northrup is back in the game - they recently tested a new version of the lunar module engine - 5 moving parts and 650,000lb thrust. Yes, 5 moving parts.
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/C on tent.cfm?ContentID=58
Now, I agree that a very large company will build the successful reusable spacecraft. That company could very well be Rutan's t/Space (not Scaled Composites) - t/space being a collaborative of Scaled and several other small companies, funded by the same deep pocket that paid for SpaceShipOne.
Some of the Apollo cameras were color - there's a great bit of footage of Apollo 17 lifting off that shows the color wheel distorting the spray of debris. Hand-panned via remote from Earth, pretty impressive.
sure, for exploration, robots are an amazing precursor and addition to humans on the ground, but the simple fact is that robots can not colonize. And colonization should be humanity's goal - if it isn't, we are as good as extinct.
Robots have some disadvantages - they break down, they don't have any intuition (yet), and they have a light-speed delay that brings "exploration" to a slow crawl. A robot would not have discovered the infamous "orange rock" from Apollo 17.
A trained geologist could do everything that Spirit or Oppy have done in a few days instead of a year.
Excellent near-term compromise: establish a space station in Mars orbit for realtime control of a dozen or so advanced rovers.
>> This guy may actually be doing a good job, but as others have said, it's not as if he invented doing things this way.
Mr Khalili is taking his native Iranian building styles and knowledge and using modern/futuristic materials in the building. His buildings are the some of the only structures that rate a "10" on California's earthquake-resistance standards. His buildings are beautiful, strong and apparently very comfortable inside. His is a very successful combination of the old and new.
the it-doesn't-exist-until-it's-discovered attitude is a leftover of the Europeans moving out of their dark ages - the attitude colors every aspect of American life. History is far more complicated than our official teachings.
While a cell phone might have a camera, it will never compete with a dedicated device, if nothing else for lack of good lenses. Same goes for MP3 player- your iPod has way more storage space. My phone has a calendar feature, but paper or palmpilot is far more usable. Looking to the future, a cell phone with credit card features is still going to be larger than a thin, regular card.
Dedicated electronics have their place, no matter how much functionality is rolled into the cell phone.
Was at the Return to the Moon conference last week - got to watch as Wendell Mendell openly dissed my business partner for being interested in making commercial space happen. Space is still a place, not a program.
Nobody going to be trapped dirtside, some day soon.
Not possible. Given that you have to align the incoming light paths to a single wavelength accuracy, space-based interferometry at anything but radio frequencies is simply not possible. Heck, interferometry using ground-based scopes is bloody hard, and that's with a physically connected light path!
The Terrestrial planet Finder telescope has a good chance of being several free-flying spacecraft that would do optical interferometry. http://www.terrestrial-planet-finder.com/ has a little bit of info. Also, I've read about astronomers doing non-realtime interferometry from recorded spectra. Not sure how they pull it off, though. Most interferometry involves physically combing the signals, somehow they figured out an image-processing method instead. *shrug* I'd still like to see a stripped-down/cheaper/better set of Hubble clones in solar orbit.
Yes, but the Hubble upgrades are like taking that 128k Macintosh and putting in a water-cooled dual G5 and a new LCD display. The newer cameras on Hubble, the WFPC3 and the NICMOS (i think), have proven worlds better than their predecessor instruments, literally. Hubble wasn't meant to be upgraded like that, but the engineers have figured out how to do it anyway. Think of the Hubble as a platform, not a single instrument.
Ideally, I would like to see several Hubble clones in solar orbit - capable of acting individually or as a very-long baseline interferometer.
I don't care how NASA is pitching it - one of those designs is a burly rover and the other is an unstable tinkertoy. Neither design is a "mobile base" - they are both large rovers.
A base should, by any reasonable designation hold at least a dozen people, these units look like they each hold 1-3 people, max. So they have a docking tunnel, big deal. They are still rovers, not mobile bases. A fleet of mobile bases (like in the Habot pic) will need a shirt-sleeve environment for maintenance, guaranteed. Hence, any schema like this will end up basing from a buried garage/base of some kind. The units might make sense for exploration, especially if the units can lift, fly to a new area to explore, then fly back to a main base.
Others have already mentioned it, but shielding on the moon is a critical issue. Even with the tanks mounted above, a user of one of these steroid-Rovers is going to get an unhealthy dose of radiation. This kind of setup would probably require a buried, rad-safe base to retreat to.
The Mobitat uses a modified version of the Mars rover "rocker-bogey" suspension - it's good to see that NASA will keep using what has turned into a very successful design.
The Habot is, IMHO, totally impractical. The "walker" legs would be a maintenance nightmare in the lunar environment. The fines (very small particles) on the moon are abrasive and static-charged. The particles find their way into anything - the Apollo suits were breaking down after a few days exposure. Sealing the joints on those legs is going to prove futile - wheels have similar problems but not nearly as complex.
Mr. Bigelow is brilliant. Maybe not as an aerospace engineer (he pays others for that), but as a man of vision and implimentation. Bigelow Aerospace has been working quietly for several years now, and it looks like they are finally ready to roll out some product. The Genesis pathfinder looks to be a very interesting testbed.
I've been looking over the Bigelow patents on USPTO site. Check out "inflatable satelite", "...thermal management" and "spacecraft sleeping berth" for some of the things they have been working on. The most revolutionary item so far seems to be building an inflatable Transhab-type module, but putting the solid core to the edge of the inflated cylinder. The core has two sets of fold-out floor panels that form two floors, plus the core has a vac-safe section. If there is a puncture, the crew can seal it up and evacuate into another section of their station.
This is my, umm, naughty dream high tech bike helmet. It doesn't exist yet. Basically this would be a fancy new-school helmet like a Giro Pneumo, with microelectronics that create a short range phased-array radar. Inside the helmet is a grid of small air bladders. As you move through the city, the radar generates a crude map which is translated as pressure around your skull. You feel a constant roll on the right side, parked cars. Behind and to the left, the moving press of a car passing. Alternately, the radar hardware could be mounted on the bike. Hand/Eye free computing (tactile) holds a lot of potential for custom uses.
On topic, I'd recommend at most getting a decent Cats Eye cyclocomputer, maybe a GPS to go with. As someone who rides almost every day, please take this advice: when riding, just ride. Like the urban rider above, that fraction of a second is all-important. Displays, gadgets, heck even waterbottles are distractions. Work on improving your hearing instead, developing your brain and senses.
Sure, the lead is good as far as photojouranlism goes, but the Pentagon has been sitting on some of the photos and torture videos since January.
So, instead of just the instant-access world of digital photos & Internet, we are also confronted with a world where the longer embarassing/damaging information is held, the more damaging it is when released. Also, from a journalism standpoint, please note how these instantaneous images have all been altered in Photoshop: the media aren't showing genitals.
I'd have to say that what I have is a real love-hate relationship toward Boston & Mass. I still live in New England, have all my life. People are a lot nicer here in Providence RI, there are jobs here in my field (video/web) and if I want to go to Mass, it's only a short drive/bus away. For coders, sure the Rt128 belt is the place to be, but other parts of the tech industry (advertising, web, dotcoms) have really suffered in the area. Scenery and personality-wise, back home in Maine is always finestkind.
When did the Dig end? They opened the tunnels, but last time I went to Boston (couple of weeks ago) there was plenty of construction/destruction going on. It's pretty cool to see the North End again, though.
Taxachussetts... might be a misnomer, but it still HURTS when you're a freelancer and filling out those tax forms. 8)
My field kinda imploded in 2001 (web advertising) and it's been a lot better living between Providence RI and Maine.
Massachusetts kinda... sucks. I lived there for 10 years (college +6) and it got more and more expensive, the people got REAL nasty after 9/11 and the Big Dig will never end! Calling it the "best tech state" also depends on whether you actually HAVE a job there - the dot-com bomb slammed a lot of young info-workers. Also, it's called "taxachusetts" for a reason.
Still, Boston has some advantages: the James Gate Pub, unbelievably hot college girls (Portsmouth is still better...) and some great bands.
This might be flame-bait, but the place has got some real problems.
SpaceX will cause people to design cheaper, less-advanced satellites. Unfortunately, it will also further clutter our orbital spaces
I would argue that cheaper launch via Falcon will enable new entrants into the market to design cheaper but higher-tech satelites. We will be able to use faster processors, newer CCDs for cameras, bulkier-better-handling-fuels. These new systems will be very intensly designed, using CAD, new materials and propulsion concepts (because you can risk it). The new generations of sats are going to continue the revolution begun with the Iridium constellation, MOST and CHIPSat.
As far as space junk, deorbit services for microsats may be as simple as an electrodynamic tether for end-of life or advanced as refuelable tugs collecting them for on-orbit recycling.
Dude! How about some attribution on that file? You copied my notes!! Obviously, putting them on sci.space.policy puts them in the public domain, but how about a shout-out for a couple hour's worth of transcription and editting?
Jon Goff pointed me toward the lecture video a couple months ago. I saw your notes and gosh do they look familiar:
That said, Elon rocks! Falcon will be cheap enough that new businesses beyond comm sats may become viable. Entrpreneurs have postulated a "sweet spot" in pricing where widely available tourism, water mining, maybe Space Solar Power become viable. Russian Dnepr rockets almost hit that spot (offered @ $700/lb in late 90s), but we Americans have to pay significantly more for them, a rule to keep home-grown rocket companies "competitive". Yeah, free market and all. Anyway, the Falcon looks to be about to completely shake up the launch market. Imagine Falcon flying from the SeaLaunch platform?
Now, can you please give me a little credit, Amigoro? And you forgot to include my intro paragraph.
instead of a widget or service for your phone, go and buy the sweetest, newest bicycle you can. On city streets, you will be the fastest thing around. You'll get fresh air, great exercise and vastly more urban mobility than a car. Cargo space sucks, though. 8)
Energia, like Boeing and Lockmart, always has plenty of plans in the wings. It's part of getting more of that sweet government $$$. Sometimes, a proposed project is just viewgraph, others it is for real, backed by good tech and engineering.
That aside, I've looked over their Mars plan recently (Clipper/Mars stuff rolled through sci.space.policy weeks ago), and it looks pretty good conceptually. 660 tons would be Low Earth Orbit departure mass. It is assembled onorbit, like all Russian stations. The system would be built around a GIANT version of the FGB/Baseblock/Zarya line of craft - 70 tons and probably 20-25m for the new baseblock.
The beauty of their plan is that most of it is demonstrated technology. The life support, engines, hull and docking ports are already in use on ISS, formerly Mir and Salyut/Almaz. It would use solar-electric propulsion, demonstrated in numerous com sats, and something based around Soyuz for Mars ascent. The plan is to put a space station of Grand Soviet Style in orbit around Mars - it looks longterm like Mir. Instead of concentrating on something really hard - landing & surviving on Mars - the Energia plan focuses on demonstrated capabilities in a new environment. The craft is to mostly do remote-ops with surface robots (in realtime) with one or two surface excursions (per 2-year crew-mission?). They say the craft would be able to return to Earth if necessary.
IMHO, it actually makes sense to accelerate such a plan - put AresStation1 into construction NOW and worry about the lander on a later flight. Imagine what 10 people working in Mars orbit could accomplish with a fleet of balloons and robot rovers - again, in realtime. Establish the new station, get as much robot horsepower their, then work on reasonable Mars capsules. Basing from Mars orbit instead of the surface has advantages: Phobos and Diemos are nearby, global perspective for science and colony/base site selection, known working environment. Gonna need a personell centrifuge, though.
Their plan can be viewed at Energia Mars Plan. It may look like vaporware, but remember that Energia, of all companies on the planet, has the hardware heritage to actually do it.
Yes, congress is doing it (and the administration) but the airlines have the clout to be secure while being smart. When have Americans EVER asked permission to travel?
My girlfriend had her Leatherman taken away today, because she was in a hurry. Yes it was her mistake to bring it, but it's an expensive tool. No way to get it back, no mailer, nothing. Toenail clippers? Tweezers? You have GOT to be kidding me.
Yes on VIP as CAPPS II victim. Interesting note: the original CAPPS system apparently had a "preferred flyer" system that most of the 9/11 hijackers would have qualified for as frequent travellers.
The thinner atmosphere should make a huge difference in observability. Weaker sunlight would be a minus, but compared to Earth sat-obs, anything in orbit should be more visible. If it's a probeb in Low Mars Orbit, it would also be somewhat closer to the MER/Spirit camera, again compared to Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Rei-
f o. cfm?ImageID=46
Mass fraction issues: spacedev is planning on using same tech for an orbital launcher, I'm not privy to the details but they are in process of resovling those issues. I'm pretty sure it won't be SSTO, it will use hybrid engines. Check out their "Streaker" vehicle design - yes it's press-ware for now but they are actively working on orbital launchers. Whatever the solution, they have something to solve the mass fraction issues.
>Yes, SSMEs may be a bit overboard. However, 250 ISP and heavy tanks just plain doesn't reach orbit, either.
True, but SpaceDev is working on it. So are Rutan/Scaled/tspace, SpaceX, XCOR and several other small shops. All their engines are simpler than SSME, RS68, etc. Of the big corps, there are several examples of new simplified (liquid) engines. CAD/CAM and new materials seem to allow better, simpler engines.
>Enough said: LUNAR module engine. We're not talking about entering lunar orbit - we're talking about entering EARTH orbit and beyond. The challenge is vastly greater, and a SS1-style engine doesn't come close to cutting it.
The Northrop TR106 650,000 lb thrust engine is based on their lunar ascent engine, not the Apollo CSM engine. The new engine seems large enough to serve in a primary stage of a launch vehicle. OK, so I might have over-sold the parts count, but it is vastly simpler than other extremely large engines like SSME and F1. The description below indicates that it has a single pintle injector.
better photo and description:
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/media/ImageIn
>P.S. - While hybrids in general are less explosive than solid rockets
On failures - not sure how much catastrophic testing they did, but it was enough to fly successfully many times. They are both creating a new field/era of flight and doing some barnstorming. Yes, it's dangerous but they are a media product as well as Square Jawed Engineers. They probably shouldn't be lecturing anyone on safety.
Hybrids generally - the biggest safety issue with hybrids seems to be fuel lodging in the motor's nozzle. This happened on an SS1 flight (13p, I think), it caused a loud bang and dented part of the engine cowling. The appeal for manned flights is that when they fail, it is not a catastrophic failure. Unlike liquids or solids.
As it stands, though, none of this changes the fact that the only manned spaceflight program functioning in the US is based around Burt Rutan.
Josh
>It's little more than a pressurized tank hooked to a ball valve that flows past an igniter into a tube filled with rubber, where gasses then expand into a nozzle and bell. A *real* rocket engine, one that can actually get you somewhere, is a hundred times more complex.
C on tent.cfm?ContentID=58
I know Jim Benson, had dinner with him a few months ago, and I can assure you that his engines have the potential for Earth to orbit applications. That you would diss on the SpaceDev hybrid motor like that shows that you don't know what you think you know. They have the mass fraction, thrust and unlike other rocket motors are restartable and non-explosive. Think about how much that can change the economics of spaceflight. The future is clearly with simpler engines, not complex monsters like the SSME. Even Northrup is back in the game - they recently tested a new version of the lunar module engine - 5 moving parts and 650,000lb thrust. Yes, 5 moving parts.
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/
Now, I agree that a very large company will build the successful reusable spacecraft. That company could very well be Rutan's t/Space (not Scaled Composites) - t/space being a collaborative of Scaled and several other small companies, funded by the same deep pocket that paid for SpaceShipOne.
josh
Some of the Apollo cameras were color - there's a great bit of footage of Apollo 17 lifting off that shows the color wheel distorting the spray of debris. Hand-panned via remote from Earth, pretty impressive.
Didn't the world turn color in the 50s?
simple: robots can't breed.
sure, for exploration, robots are an amazing precursor and addition to humans on the ground, but the simple fact is that robots can not colonize. And colonization should be humanity's goal - if it isn't, we are as good as extinct.
Robots have some disadvantages - they break down, they don't have any intuition (yet), and they have a light-speed delay that brings "exploration" to a slow crawl. A robot would not have discovered the infamous "orange rock" from Apollo 17.
A trained geologist could do everything that Spirit or Oppy have done in a few days instead of a year.
Excellent near-term compromise: establish a space station in Mars orbit for realtime control of a dozen or so advanced rovers.
Remember, robots can't breed.
josh
>> This guy may actually be doing a good job, but as others have said, it's not as if he invented doing things this way.
Mr Khalili is taking his native Iranian building styles and knowledge and using modern/futuristic materials in the building. His buildings are the some of the only structures that rate a "10" on California's earthquake-resistance standards. His buildings are beautiful, strong and apparently very comfortable inside. His is a very successful combination of the old and new.
the it-doesn't-exist-until-it's-discovered attitude is a leftover of the Europeans moving out of their dark ages - the attitude colors every aspect of American life. History is far more complicated than our official teachings.
josh
drive by crossbowing is going to become real popular with the Crips and Bloods.
While a cell phone might have a camera, it will never compete with a dedicated device, if nothing else for lack of good lenses. Same goes for MP3 player- your iPod has way more storage space. My phone has a calendar feature, but paper or palmpilot is far more usable. Looking to the future, a cell phone with credit card features is still going to be larger than a thin, regular card.
Dedicated electronics have their place, no matter how much functionality is rolled into the cell phone.
Right there with you.
Was at the Return to the Moon conference last week - got to watch as Wendell Mendell openly dissed my business partner for being interested in making commercial space happen. Space is still a place, not a program.
Nobody going to be trapped dirtside, some day soon.
Josh
Not possible. Given that you have to align the incoming light paths to a single wavelength accuracy, space-based interferometry at anything but radio frequencies is simply not possible. Heck, interferometry using ground-based scopes is bloody hard, and that's with a physically connected light path!
The Terrestrial planet Finder telescope has a good chance of being several free-flying spacecraft that would do optical interferometry. http://www.terrestrial-planet-finder.com/ has a little bit of info. Also, I've read about astronomers doing non-realtime interferometry from recorded spectra. Not sure how they pull it off, though. Most interferometry involves physically combing the signals, somehow they figured out an image-processing method instead. *shrug* I'd still like to see a stripped-down/cheaper/better set of Hubble clones in solar orbit.
Josh
Yes, but the Hubble upgrades are like taking that 128k Macintosh and putting in a water-cooled dual G5 and a new LCD display. The newer cameras on Hubble, the WFPC3 and the NICMOS (i think), have proven worlds better than their predecessor instruments, literally. Hubble wasn't meant to be upgraded like that, but the engineers have figured out how to do it anyway. Think of the Hubble as a platform, not a single instrument.
Ideally, I would like to see several Hubble clones in solar orbit - capable of acting individually or as a very-long baseline interferometer.
Josh
I don't care how NASA is pitching it - one of those designs is a burly rover and the other is an unstable tinkertoy. Neither design is a "mobile base" - they are both large rovers.
A base should, by any reasonable designation hold at least a dozen people, these units look like they each hold 1-3 people, max. So they have a docking tunnel, big deal. They are still rovers, not mobile bases. A fleet of mobile bases (like in the Habot pic) will need a shirt-sleeve environment for maintenance, guaranteed. Hence, any schema like this will end up basing from a buried garage/base of some kind. The units might make sense for exploration, especially if the units can lift, fly to a new area to explore, then fly back to a main base.
Others have already mentioned it, but shielding on the moon is a critical issue. Even with the tanks mounted above, a user of one of these steroid-Rovers is going to get an unhealthy dose of radiation. This kind of setup would probably require a buried, rad-safe base to retreat to.
The Mobitat uses a modified version of the Mars rover "rocker-bogey" suspension - it's good to see that NASA will keep using what has turned into a very successful design.
The Habot is, IMHO, totally impractical. The "walker" legs would be a maintenance nightmare in the lunar environment. The fines (very small particles) on the moon are abrasive and static-charged. The particles find their way into anything - the Apollo suits were breaking down after a few days exposure. Sealing the joints on those legs is going to prove futile - wheels have similar problems but not nearly as complex.
Cute viewgraphs, I'm waiting for a private base.
Build lunar base.
do something.
profit!
Josh
I've been looking over the Bigelow patents on USPTO site. Check out "inflatable satelite", "...thermal management" and "spacecraft sleeping berth" for some of the things they have been working on. The most revolutionary item so far seems to be building an inflatable Transhab-type module, but putting the solid core to the edge of the inflated cylinder. The core has two sets of fold-out floor panels that form two floors, plus the core has a vac-safe section. If there is a puncture, the crew can seal it up and evacuate into another section of their station.
Bigelow on USPTO.gov
start saving those frequent-flyer miles,
Josh
This is my, umm, naughty dream high tech bike helmet. It doesn't exist yet. Basically this would be a fancy new-school helmet like a Giro Pneumo, with microelectronics that create a short range phased-array radar. Inside the helmet is a grid of small air bladders. As you move through the city, the radar generates a crude map which is translated as pressure around your skull. You feel a constant roll on the right side, parked cars. Behind and to the left, the moving press of a car passing. Alternately, the radar hardware could be mounted on the bike. Hand/Eye free computing (tactile) holds a lot of potential for custom uses.
On topic, I'd recommend at most getting a decent Cats Eye cyclocomputer, maybe a GPS to go with. As someone who rides almost every day, please take this advice: when riding, just ride. Like the urban rider above, that fraction of a second is all-important. Displays, gadgets, heck even waterbottles are distractions. Work on improving your hearing instead, developing your brain and senses.
Stay safe on the road,
Josh
Sure, the lead is good as far as photojouranlism goes, but the Pentagon has been sitting on some of the photos and torture videos since January.
So, instead of just the instant-access world of digital photos & Internet, we are also confronted with a world where the longer embarassing/damaging information is held, the more damaging it is when released. Also, from a journalism standpoint, please note how these instantaneous images have all been altered in Photoshop: the media aren't showing genitals.
-Josh
Yes! Mod the parent up! He is very right!
Embrace the persona of "DAD". I wish my parents had...
J05H
bkrrrr-
I'd have to say that what I have is a real love-hate relationship toward Boston & Mass. I still live in New England, have all my life. People are a lot nicer here in Providence RI, there are jobs here in my field (video/web) and if I want to go to Mass, it's only a short drive/bus away. For coders, sure the Rt128 belt is the place to be, but other parts of the tech industry (advertising, web, dotcoms) have really suffered in the area. Scenery and personality-wise, back home in Maine is always finestkind.
Josh
When did the Dig end? They opened the tunnels, but last time I went to Boston (couple of weeks ago) there was plenty of construction/destruction going on. It's pretty cool to see the North End again, though.
Taxachussetts... might be a misnomer, but it still HURTS when you're a freelancer and filling out those tax forms. 8)
My field kinda imploded in 2001 (web advertising) and it's been a lot better living between Providence RI and Maine.
Massachusetts kinda... sucks. I lived there for 10 years (college +6) and it got more and more expensive, the people got REAL nasty after 9/11 and the Big Dig will never end! Calling it the "best tech state" also depends on whether you actually HAVE a job there - the dot-com bomb slammed a lot of young info-workers. Also, it's called "taxachusetts" for a reason.
Still, Boston has some advantages: the James Gate Pub, unbelievably hot college girls (Portsmouth is still better...) and some great bands.
This might be flame-bait, but the place has got some real problems.
Josh
Thank you! The little media I create, I like credit for, thanx for digging them up and posting them.
ad astra
Josh
SpaceX will cause people to design cheaper, less-advanced satellites. Unfortunately, it will also further clutter our orbital spaces
I would argue that cheaper launch via Falcon will enable new entrants into the market to design cheaper but higher-tech satelites. We will be able to use faster processors, newer CCDs for cameras, bulkier-better-handling-fuels. These new systems will be very intensly designed, using CAD, new materials and propulsion concepts (because you can risk it). The new generations of sats are going to continue the revolution begun with the Iridium constellation, MOST and CHIPSat.
As far as space junk, deorbit services for microsats may be as simple as an electrodynamic tether for end-of life or advanced as refuelable tugs collecting them for on-orbit recycling.
Josh
Jon Goff pointed me toward the lecture video a couple months ago. I saw your notes and gosh do they look familiar:
My sci.space.policy lecture notes, posted 14.12.2003 titled Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanford 10/08/03
That said, Elon rocks! Falcon will be cheap enough that new businesses beyond comm sats may become viable. Entrpreneurs have postulated a "sweet spot" in pricing where widely available tourism, water mining, maybe Space Solar Power become viable. Russian Dnepr rockets almost hit that spot (offered @ $700/lb in late 90s), but we Americans have to pay significantly more for them, a rule to keep home-grown rocket companies "competitive". Yeah, free market and all. Anyway, the Falcon looks to be about to completely shake up the launch market. Imagine Falcon flying from the SeaLaunch platform?
Now, can you please give me a little credit, Amigoro? And you forgot to include my intro paragraph.
Josh
instead of a widget or service for your phone, go and buy the sweetest, newest bicycle you can. On city streets, you will be the fastest thing around. You'll get fresh air, great exercise and vastly more urban mobility than a car. Cargo space sucks, though. 8)
That aside, I've looked over their Mars plan recently (Clipper/Mars stuff rolled through sci.space.policy weeks ago), and it looks pretty good conceptually. 660 tons would be Low Earth Orbit departure mass. It is assembled onorbit, like all Russian stations. The system would be built around a GIANT version of the FGB/Baseblock/Zarya line of craft - 70 tons and probably 20-25m for the new baseblock.
The beauty of their plan is that most of it is demonstrated technology. The life support, engines, hull and docking ports are already in use on ISS, formerly Mir and Salyut/Almaz. It would use solar-electric propulsion, demonstrated in numerous com sats, and something based around Soyuz for Mars ascent. The plan is to put a space station of Grand Soviet Style in orbit around Mars - it looks longterm like Mir. Instead of concentrating on something really hard - landing & surviving on Mars - the Energia plan focuses on demonstrated capabilities in a new environment. The craft is to mostly do remote-ops with surface robots (in realtime) with one or two surface excursions (per 2-year crew-mission?). They say the craft would be able to return to Earth if necessary.
IMHO, it actually makes sense to accelerate such a plan - put AresStation1 into construction NOW and worry about the lander on a later flight. Imagine what 10 people working in Mars orbit could accomplish with a fleet of balloons and robot rovers - again, in realtime. Establish the new station, get as much robot horsepower their, then work on reasonable Mars capsules. Basing from Mars orbit instead of the surface has advantages: Phobos and Diemos are nearby, global perspective for science and colony/base site selection, known working environment. Gonna need a personell centrifuge, though.
Their plan can be viewed at Energia Mars Plan. It may look like vaporware, but remember that Energia, of all companies on the planet, has the hardware heritage to actually do it.
-josh
Yes, congress is doing it (and the administration) but the airlines have the clout to be secure while being smart. When have Americans EVER asked permission to travel?
My girlfriend had her Leatherman taken away today, because she was in a hurry. Yes it was her mistake to bring it, but it's an expensive tool. No way to get it back, no mailer, nothing. Toenail clippers? Tweezers? You have GOT to be kidding me.
Yes on VIP as CAPPS II victim. Interesting note: the original CAPPS system apparently had a "preferred flyer" system that most of the 9/11 hijackers would have qualified for as frequent travellers.
-Josh
The thinner atmosphere should make a huge difference in observability. Weaker sunlight would be a minus, but compared to Earth sat-obs, anything in orbit should be more visible. If it's a probeb in Low Mars Orbit, it would also be somewhat closer to the MER/Spirit camera, again compared to Earth.
-Josh