I dismantle old printers, especially inkjets, for components for Arduino microcontroller projects. Each inkjet has at least 2 stepper motors, a bunch of LEDs and some precision rails.
No the fact is that Congressional consensus since Apollo is that NASA gets between 1/3 and 1/2 of 1% of the Federal budget, no more. This has fluctuated only slightly for 3 decades. When Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA somehow decided based on very little evidence that they were in for a budget increase. It never happened for very good reasons that have nothing to do with liberal/conservative issues or even the recession.
You didn't understand. Escape velocity is for leaving Earth's vicinity. This dude is talking about achieving Low Earth Orbit, LEO or equivalent. No matter how much energy is imparted, to achieve LEO (or MEO, GEO, etc) requires one or more circularization burns. This simply can not be done by applying more initial force to the object. It could be done with Myrabo-type laser propulsion or a small solid rocket.
Earth-Moon L1 has a significantly different view than LEO space station. It's about 2/3 the way to the Moon, you can see the full face of the Earth and always have a waxing/waning moon in the other direction. In LEO you have the Earth covering about 180 degrees of the view at all times, saturating visibility (but providing warmth and some shielding).
While a Mars flyby might not seem exciting, Mars orbit, Phobos and Deimos would provide huge photo-ops along with science. Additionally Mars' moons have the entire history of Mars available in the form of rocks blasted off the surface. We can do Mars science, including sample collection and return, without ever going to the surface. Personally I'm all for landings, but orbiting can be done sooner and with great results.
Without more flights, it'll never cost any less...
TheMeuge gives us the best post in thread. Flight frequency has the most elastic effect on launch cost and therefore price in a market. The more often a launch system flies the cheaper it becomes per unit.
... I'm pretty sure that GEO slots only see a few hours (or days at worst) per year of occlusion, it's definitely not every day due to the inclination of the equator. Slight variants off the ecliptic can eliminate them (halo orbits). IIRC.
And you certainly know nothing about the launch market. Every major rocket production line is under-producing because they were expanded to meet a demand for telecom satellites in the late 90s that never materialized. Delta and Atlas are at less than 1/4 capacity.
Yes, new.space can succeed. It will require more than just NASA's cash to happen. It will require new payloads and new businesses to utilize these launchers.
Commercial/semi-commercial launchers such as Ariane, Proton, Delta, Atlas, Zenit, Pegasus etc have been flying commercial communications and imaging satellites for decades. The question is whether new types of businesses can emerge to create new markets for more launches.
consider using http://99translations.com/ - they have a good interface, several OSS efforts use them for internationalization and I'm pretty sure they have a "free" option. YMMV
Personally i've never taken a dump in a potted plant or otherwise fuxxored my coworkers/office. Perhaps the difference is that I'm a regular Subgenius Josh and not your brilliant Assburger Josh. The distinguishing characteristic is whether you are ninja, pirate or jackass.
(shouts to the Joshs that don't give us a bad name)
The proposed Orion space debris laser fits nicely with our recent problems of creating so much debris in LEO. It would be a single pulsed laser on an equatorial mountaintop capable of ridding LEO of hazards in 4 years.
With the recent collisions this is becoming imperative. We need to have a clean LEO environment or we aren't going to do much in space.
He's a Navy corpsman medic attached to a Marine recon unit. When he gets deployed he will spend extensive time in the field. Solar backup makes a lot of sense.
Have you seen the kind of kit these guys sport? It's pimp in it's own way.
VHoldr has a pretty nice and affordable helmet cam. The lens is self-leveling and has a little laser-pointer (might be combat issue) but it has a dull black housing, uses microSD cards and has several mounts available. The mounts include helmet, handlebar, goggle and it'd be pretty easy to hack a mount to a Gorillapod (3 arm bendy tripod). Not to sound like a commercial but I've been looking @ that camera for a while.
Combine that with a solar-battery gadget/pack, extra memory cards and a Netbook with card reader and he's good to record indefinitely. APC makes a laptop distributed-power system, easily combined with solar panels or use the above posted "solarize your backpack" info. Not sure on using iPod w/ netbook but not impossible. There are more expensive helmet cams that include video out and other recording solutions.
Joomla is an excellent choice for publishing by non-technical staff. Personally i'd rather dig my eyes out with a spoon than work in Drupal. Haven't done much with Plone but Zope used to be tons of fun despite the learning curve. Not recommended for the non-technical.
you did notice that he refered to the "receiver" not the "transmitter" as being near populations? Also please note that no serious SPS proposal has been proposed anywhere under geosynchronous orbit due to tracking and sunlight issues.
Excellent points on terrestrial solar's drawbacks.
Two points to consider - more has been spent on fusion in 50 years than was spent on Apollo and who ever said that photovoltaics are the only way to go for space-based solar power? Leaps and bounds are being made in lightweight solar-thermal power.
Slashdot Mirror
These rovers are a very mature design that has worked flawlessly. Build and send a dozen of them.
Does it come with ethane-frosted garlic sticks?
I dismantle old printers, especially inkjets, for components for Arduino microcontroller projects. Each inkjet has at least 2 stepper motors, a bunch of LEDs and some precision rails.
No the fact is that Congressional consensus since Apollo is that NASA gets between 1/3 and 1/2 of 1% of the Federal budget, no more. This has fluctuated only slightly for 3 decades. When Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA somehow decided based on very little evidence that they were in for a budget increase. It never happened for very good reasons that have nothing to do with liberal/conservative issues or even the recession.
NASA needs to live within it's budget.
You didn't understand. Escape velocity is for leaving Earth's vicinity. This dude is talking about achieving Low Earth Orbit, LEO or equivalent. No matter how much energy is imparted, to achieve LEO (or MEO, GEO, etc) requires one or more circularization burns. This simply can not be done by applying more initial force to the object. It could be done with Myrabo-type laser propulsion or a small solid rocket.
Earth-Moon L1 has a significantly different view than LEO space station. It's about 2/3 the way to the Moon, you can see the full face of the Earth and always have a waxing/waning moon in the other direction. In LEO you have the Earth covering about 180 degrees of the view at all times, saturating visibility (but providing warmth and some shielding).
While a Mars flyby might not seem exciting, Mars orbit, Phobos and Deimos would provide huge photo-ops along with science. Additionally Mars' moons have the entire history of Mars available in the form of rocks blasted off the surface. We can do Mars science, including sample collection and return, without ever going to the surface. Personally I'm all for landings, but orbiting can be done sooner and with great results.
Without more flights, it'll never cost any less...
TheMeuge gives us the best post in thread. Flight frequency has the most elastic effect on launch cost and therefore price in a market. The more often a launch system flies the cheaper it becomes per unit.
Give the super-tuna a taste for jellyfish and we are all set.
... I'm pretty sure that GEO slots only see a few hours (or days at worst) per year of occlusion, it's definitely not every day due to the inclination of the equator. Slight variants off the ecliptic can eliminate them (halo orbits). IIRC.
And you certainly know nothing about the launch market. Every major rocket production line is under-producing because they were expanded to meet a demand for telecom satellites in the late 90s that never materialized. Delta and Atlas are at less than 1/4 capacity.
Build more payloads!
Yes, new.space can succeed. It will require more than just NASA's cash to happen. It will require new payloads and new businesses to utilize these launchers.
Commercial/semi-commercial launchers such as Ariane, Proton, Delta, Atlas, Zenit, Pegasus etc have been flying commercial communications and imaging satellites for decades. The question is whether new types of businesses can emerge to create new markets for more launches.
Some clients didn't plan for growth?
How about one with a bluetooth keyboard?
They are called NOAA and NASA.
consider using http://99translations.com/ - they have a good interface, several OSS efforts use them for internationalization and I'm pretty sure they have a "free" option. YMMV
No, they'll be on concrete pads over gravel, with the top soil having been scraped off and sent to the organic farm of your choice! 8)
#3 - mass-produced biodiesel in the future will be generated by algae in tanks, not crops grown in soil?
Personally i've never taken a dump in a potted plant or otherwise fuxxored my coworkers/office. Perhaps the difference is that I'm a regular Subgenius Josh and not your brilliant Assburger Josh. The distinguishing characteristic is whether you are ninja, pirate or jackass.
(shouts to the Joshs that don't give us a bad name)
The proposed Orion space debris laser fits nicely with our recent problems of creating so much debris in LEO. It would be a single pulsed laser on an equatorial mountaintop capable of ridding LEO of hazards in 4 years.
With the recent collisions this is becoming imperative. We need to have a clean LEO environment or we aren't going to do much in space.
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/orions_laser_hunting_space_debris.shtml
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997SPIE.3092..728P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3109525
Water makes a great shield inside a space station but is a dumb idea for "collecting" debris.
He's a Navy corpsman medic attached to a Marine recon unit. When he gets deployed he will spend extensive time in the field. Solar backup makes a lot of sense.
Have you seen the kind of kit these guys sport? It's pimp in it's own way.
http://www.vholdr.com/
VHoldr has a pretty nice and affordable helmet cam. The lens is self-leveling and has a little laser-pointer (might be combat issue) but it has a dull black housing, uses microSD cards and has several mounts available. The mounts include helmet, handlebar, goggle and it'd be pretty easy to hack a mount to a Gorillapod (3 arm bendy tripod). Not to sound like a commercial but I've been looking @ that camera for a while.
Combine that with a solar-battery gadget/pack, extra memory cards and a Netbook with card reader and he's good to record indefinitely. APC makes a laptop distributed-power system, easily combined with solar panels or use the above posted "solarize your backpack" info. Not sure on using iPod w/ netbook but not impossible. There are more expensive helmet cams that include video out and other recording solutions.
Best of luck to your brother.
played with it once and hated the structure. Not sure what the turn-off was, but didn't like it, summary judgement.
Joomla is an excellent choice for publishing by non-technical staff. Personally i'd rather dig my eyes out with a spoon than work in Drupal. Haven't done much with Plone but Zope used to be tons of fun despite the learning curve. Not recommended for the non-technical.
you did notice that he refered to the "receiver" not the "transmitter" as being near populations? Also please note that no serious SPS proposal has been proposed anywhere under geosynchronous orbit due to tracking and sunlight issues.
Excellent points on terrestrial solar's drawbacks.
Two points to consider - more has been spent on fusion in 50 years than was spent on Apollo and who ever said that photovoltaics are the only way to go for space-based solar power? Leaps and bounds are being made in lightweight solar-thermal power.