I don't think it can. A request by an extradition partner triggers a set of proceedings. The justice minister can't just say "no, fuck you." The court needs to do that.
It looks like everything he said is verifiable fact. The case does have an extraterritorial aspect (the crime she's accused of did not occur in the US or Canada) and Canada is not party to the anti-Iranian sanctions in question. Finally, Trump did make comments about the case, suggesting that he would definitely intervene to get a trade deal with China signed: https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
Those three things seem to be pretty much exactly the situation that Canadian extradition law is written to block.
Definitely. Unfortunately there's only one viable launch window (in 2020) so you'd have to send your tanker and your crewed ship at about the same time. That more or less doubles the chance of failure, since two ships have to work correctly instead of just one, and it probably wouldn't be worth the week or so you could save in transit.
For a sane plan, not tied to the US election schedule, you'd send the tankers (or fuel production facilities) ahead of time, make sure they were working correctly, then launch the crew in a subsequent window. Most of the Mars plans through the years have included something like that.
Musk's 2016 proposal was 80-150 days using a 6 km/s interplanetary orbit injection delta-v. That follows the rule of thumb that (for a single stage) you can practically get dv equal to about twice your exhaust velocity. His plan is to burn pretty much ALL his dv on that transfer insertion and enter Mars' atmosphere at interplanetary speeds. The spaceship would then either stay there (as a habitat), or refuel at Mars for the return.
Refuelling at the destination (or not coming back) definitely lets you go faster. But since we're considering what might be close to possible on Trump's timeline, I don't think refuelling at Mars is in the cards.
Musk also said the transit time might go as low as 30 days in the distant future, but for that he must be imagining some new type of engine.
The Soviet flag is red with a yellow hammer and sickle. Russia was part of the political entity The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when the vast majority of the bleeding happened. A majority of bleeders (both by absolute number and, by a lesser margin, per capita) were ethnic Russian.
If you're an advertising agency, you're absolutely correct. Who cares, as long as someone is willing to pay for it.
Some of us manage to take a slightly wider view. Advertising is a drain on society's wealth. Ad supported stuff costs us each *more* than just paying for things we use because the advertising is a wealth sink.
I probably should have said a *practical* maximum delta-v. The point remains, you cannot just go as fast as you want, as asserted by the OP.
If you look at the dv required it costs a lot to make the transit much shorter. For the window in 2019 it looks like you might actually better off waiting until 2020. In that window, 150 days is about the optimal. If you want to make that 100 days you pretty much double the dv required, and that's close to the rule-of-thumb limit of twice your exhaust velocity. You could trim that down to 80 days if you really, really wanted to go all out, but that's about it.
Even if you've only got one light, the problem is not solvable if you don't have a known occluder in a known location, and a fairly specific spatial relationship to the object you're imaging. It's hard to think of when that situation might arise. It might, but not in any of the scenarios mentioned in the summary. You won't be putting such a system on a car and using it to save children.
It's not quite that simple. To go fast you need greater delta-v; because of orbital mechanics, to go more than a little bit faster you need a LOT more delta-v. Because of the need to carry fuel, the rocket equation tells us that our maximum delta-v is related to the specific impulse of our engine. It's a bit counter intuitive, but chemical engines can only let you go so fast. Making the non-fuel payload lighter helps, but it very quickly becomes an insignificant factor compared to the fuel mass. As long as you're using chemical rockets, launch windows, and the transit times they imply, are very much windows, with brick walls in between.
You could make a fast transit to Mars using ion or nuclear engines, but that's not off the shelf technology so it's not going to happen in the next two years.
There's a launch window near the end of 2019, but it's an 800 day transit. You'd get there sooner if you waited for the 170 day one in the middle of 2020.
Flying to the moon is fairly easy because the minimum energy transfer orbit is a few days, and windows come along every day, or a couple times an hour if you're in orbit.
Flying to Mars is harder because the transfer orbit is 8.5 months long and a window opens once every two years.
The amount of energy (depth of gravity wells, etc.) isn't really much different, and is dwarfed by the energy required to get into Earth orbit in the first place.
You'd have to work out the math, but it might be possible. Nothing really new is required to put a man on Mars. If you redirected the entire planet's rocket building and launch capabilities into putting hardware (and a massive amount of fuel) into orbit, you might be able to build a ship big enough to make it in the required time.
The orbital mechanics would probably still get you though.
As someone else said in another thread today: "confidence is the theme of Slashdot."
There's a slight difference between controlling things in the lab for convenience and limits imposed by physical law. Their reconstruction technique requires an occluder and requires knowledge about where that occluder is. They say in their paper that the problem is not practically solvable if those conditions aren't met.
It doesn't. The shadows are very carefully controlled using a specifically placed occluding object. This is a neat trick, but I don't see how it would ever be practical.
Your information seems to be a bit out of date. Sodium was originally made from sodium carbonate, but Wikipedia says most sodium production today is from electrolysis of molten NaCl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Regardless of your caps, you can certainly make sodium from the chloride salt, so the process can sequester net carbon. If you use some sort of partial-availability zero carbon energy source (maybe solar to heat up the NaCl and electrolyze it) then you have a chemical battery (a sodium-air battery, to be precise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–air_electrochemical_cell#Sodium–air).
When you discharge it, you get electricity out, but also sequestered carbon and some hydrogen. You could burn the hydrogen to recover that energy, but you might find something better to do with it. You could use it as feedstock for synthetic fuel production to run vehicles where electric doesn't make sense, for example.
The show always did just support the advertising. I'm sure the sportscasters and crew want to produce the best show they can, but the people who actually make decisions want to make money. Their goal is always to maximize income generation (ads) and minimize expenditures (content). So they create as little content as cheaply as they think they can get away with. As you point out, they just keep optimizing that function.
The thing is, advertising is inefficient. The product has very little overall value, and even that value is fleeting. If we all just paid for content, in the longer term we would all have more wealth because less of it would be wasted on creating and distributing ads.
You could actually. You can get sodium from cracking the sodium chloride in sea water. You can do that using electricity (input from PV or wind) or thermally (concentrated solar). Most current production is a bit of both, you liquefy the salt and then electrolyse it.
Efficient carbon sequestration can be useful even if it's not quite as efficient as turning off a carbon source. You can use excess peak renewable energy, geographically limited renewable energy (like geothermal or solar in the desert) or you might use it to offset some source with special requirements, like small vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
When they're on the ground, below the clouds.
I don't think it can. A request by an extradition partner triggers a set of proceedings. The justice minister can't just say "no, fuck you." The court needs to do that.
It looks like everything he said is verifiable fact. The case does have an extraterritorial aspect (the crime she's accused of did not occur in the US or Canada) and Canada is not party to the anti-Iranian sanctions in question. Finally, Trump did make comments about the case, suggesting that he would definitely intervene to get a trade deal with China signed: https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
Those three things seem to be pretty much exactly the situation that Canadian extradition law is written to block.
What? Commenting reverses mods? Damn, didnâ(TM)t know. Iâ(TM)m new here.
Definitely. Unfortunately there's only one viable launch window (in 2020) so you'd have to send your tanker and your crewed ship at about the same time. That more or less doubles the chance of failure, since two ships have to work correctly instead of just one, and it probably wouldn't be worth the week or so you could save in transit.
For a sane plan, not tied to the US election schedule, you'd send the tankers (or fuel production facilities) ahead of time, make sure they were working correctly, then launch the crew in a subsequent window. Most of the Mars plans through the years have included something like that.
It's okay, I did it for you.
Musk's 2016 proposal was 80-150 days using a 6 km/s interplanetary orbit injection delta-v. That follows the rule of thumb that (for a single stage) you can practically get dv equal to about twice your exhaust velocity. His plan is to burn pretty much ALL his dv on that transfer insertion and enter Mars' atmosphere at interplanetary speeds. The spaceship would then either stay there (as a habitat), or refuel at Mars for the return.
Refuelling at the destination (or not coming back) definitely lets you go faster. But since we're considering what might be close to possible on Trump's timeline, I don't think refuelling at Mars is in the cards.
Musk also said the transit time might go as low as 30 days in the distant future, but for that he must be imagining some new type of engine.
The Soviet flag is red with a yellow hammer and sickle. Russia was part of the political entity The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when the vast majority of the bleeding happened. A majority of bleeders (both by absolute number and, by a lesser margin, per capita) were ethnic Russian.
Even better! There's this thing called screen.
If you're an advertising agency, you're absolutely correct. Who cares, as long as someone is willing to pay for it.
Some of us manage to take a slightly wider view. Advertising is a drain on society's wealth. Ad supported stuff costs us each *more* than just paying for things we use because the advertising is a wealth sink.
I probably should have said a *practical* maximum delta-v. The point remains, you cannot just go as fast as you want, as asserted by the OP.
If you look at the dv required it costs a lot to make the transit much shorter. For the window in 2019 it looks like you might actually better off waiting until 2020. In that window, 150 days is about the optimal. If you want to make that 100 days you pretty much double the dv required, and that's close to the rule-of-thumb limit of twice your exhaust velocity. You could trim that down to 80 days if you really, really wanted to go all out, but that's about it.
Even if you've only got one light, the problem is not solvable if you don't have a known occluder in a known location, and a fairly specific spatial relationship to the object you're imaging. It's hard to think of when that situation might arise. It might, but not in any of the scenarios mentioned in the summary. You won't be putting such a system on a car and using it to save children.
The most important benefit is that pulling a 3D object out of a bath of liquid like that looks waaaaaay cooler than regular 3D printing.
It's not quite that simple. To go fast you need greater delta-v; because of orbital mechanics, to go more than a little bit faster you need a LOT more delta-v. Because of the need to carry fuel, the rocket equation tells us that our maximum delta-v is related to the specific impulse of our engine. It's a bit counter intuitive, but chemical engines can only let you go so fast. Making the non-fuel payload lighter helps, but it very quickly becomes an insignificant factor compared to the fuel mass. As long as you're using chemical rockets, launch windows, and the transit times they imply, are very much windows, with brick walls in between.
You could make a fast transit to Mars using ion or nuclear engines, but that's not off the shelf technology so it's not going to happen in the next two years.
You can't do it in a few weeks. Well, you can, but it would require an insane amount of delta-v.
Transit times to Mars fall roughly around 600-800 days and 150-250 days.
Maybe the NASA guy knows that Trump doesn't control NASA funding allocations?
There's a launch window near the end of 2019, but it's an 800 day transit. You'd get there sooner if you waited for the 170 day one in the middle of 2020.
Flying to the moon is fairly easy because the minimum energy transfer orbit is a few days, and windows come along every day, or a couple times an hour if you're in orbit.
Flying to Mars is harder because the transfer orbit is 8.5 months long and a window opens once every two years.
The amount of energy (depth of gravity wells, etc.) isn't really much different, and is dwarfed by the energy required to get into Earth orbit in the first place.
Are you suggesting someone needs to shoot a president so we can go to Mars?
You'd have to work out the math, but it might be possible. Nothing really new is required to put a man on Mars. If you redirected the entire planet's rocket building and launch capabilities into putting hardware (and a massive amount of fuel) into orbit, you might be able to build a ship big enough to make it in the required time.
The orbital mechanics would probably still get you though.
As someone else said in another thread today: "confidence is the theme of Slashdot."
There's a slight difference between controlling things in the lab for convenience and limits imposed by physical law. Their reconstruction technique requires an occluder and requires knowledge about where that occluder is. They say in their paper that the problem is not practically solvable if those conditions aren't met.
It doesn't. The shadows are very carefully controlled using a specifically placed occluding object. This is a neat trick, but I don't see how it would ever be practical.
Your information seems to be a bit out of date. Sodium was originally made from sodium carbonate, but Wikipedia says most sodium production today is from electrolysis of molten NaCl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Regardless of your caps, you can certainly make sodium from the chloride salt, so the process can sequester net carbon. If you use some sort of partial-availability zero carbon energy source (maybe solar to heat up the NaCl and electrolyze it) then you have a chemical battery (a sodium-air battery, to be precise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–air_electrochemical_cell#Sodium–air).
When you discharge it, you get electricity out, but also sequestered carbon and some hydrogen. You could burn the hydrogen to recover that energy, but you might find something better to do with it. You could use it as feedstock for synthetic fuel production to run vehicles where electric doesn't make sense, for example.
The show always did just support the advertising. I'm sure the sportscasters and crew want to produce the best show they can, but the people who actually make decisions want to make money. Their goal is always to maximize income generation (ads) and minimize expenditures (content). So they create as little content as cheaply as they think they can get away with. As you point out, they just keep optimizing that function.
The thing is, advertising is inefficient. The product has very little overall value, and even that value is fleeting. If we all just paid for content, in the longer term we would all have more wealth because less of it would be wasted on creating and distributing ads.
You could actually. You can get sodium from cracking the sodium chloride in sea water. You can do that using electricity (input from PV or wind) or thermally (concentrated solar). Most current production is a bit of both, you liquefy the salt and then electrolyse it.
Efficient carbon sequestration can be useful even if it's not quite as efficient as turning off a carbon source. You can use excess peak renewable energy, geographically limited renewable energy (like geothermal or solar in the desert) or you might use it to offset some source with special requirements, like small vehicles.