That bill and all other pro IP bills that allow hollywood to sue grandmothers and 11 year old girls for 20K and more must be stopped and the people pushing them booted out of the country.
Heck lets go farther and pull RIAA and MPAA people's skin off like wrapping paper and deck the halls with their guts.
I seen 32bit risc cpus implemented in fpgs but Niagara is a cutting edge 64bit design that makes core look crude for server and super computer applications.
Not really suited for desktop apps yet as they tend to be single threaded still and can't make use of the 32 threads.
I'm surprised the government allowed Intel to take 65NM fab tech out of the country and to china of all places that really should not have been allowed and landed some big wigs in Leavenworth because it should have.
BTW if nano assemblers tiny assembly lines for nanotech not to be confused with nanites which is pure scifi ever become possible yes home fabbing would become possible maybe even affordable.
BTW the niagra chip even when built with 130nm tech still can do more flops per watt then intel's core architecture.
Are these batteries explosion resistant ie can you drive a nail though a cell and have it fail in a safe manner like the cells by A123 or will they explode like a firework like the trash sony sells?
This is needed of they are to be used in an electric car.
Actually ISS can be caught up with in 3 hours if needed the 48 hour is just so they can get away with a low delta V and have a wide launch window.
The 3 hour two orbit rendezvous was used for skylab missions and is being investigated by spacex so they can launch a crew of seven vs four.
For the 48 hour ISS mission the back seats in dragon must be replaced with a WCS,and small gally.
Soyuz only has 400 M/sec delta V and the shuttle 680 M/sec while apollo had over 1600M/sec and dragon maybe 1100 M/sec.
LM designed a very good lifting body CEV that made use of nothing but three CBC atlas V's this would have been cheap and extremely safe.
This CEV was a real spaceship with an airlock redundant TPS and a low 2g reentry.
But nasa wanted to use their much inferior design with no airlock and a poor mass to volume ratio.
If nasa had issues over the RD180s aerojet has the rights to manufacture the engine in the US and eventually on a saturn V class wide body atlas V they could be replaced by the much more powerful TRW TR107 pintle injector engine.
This engine would even be able to exceed the F1 in thrust eventually already beats it in ISP and did I mention it's reusable to boot a fly back first stage anyone?
But if Nasa fails the private sector will give us a half dozen good capsules and mini shuttles by 2015 and spacex may even give us a Saturn V class RLV/EELV hybrid in the falcon BFR.
If NASA does not come through we need not worry as the private sector will come through where the government has failed.
The Spacex BFR the rocket to follow the falcon 9 heavy will be a Saturn V class vehicle except it'll cost a fraction of the Saturn V since it'll be partly reusable and use simple pintle injector engines.
Also there are several 12T to 40T private rockets and RLVs in the works and one can do a lunar mission with several cheap medium launches about five to seven of them as well.
Whats going on at nasa is a travesty and an example of government waste and stubbornness.
They could fly Orion before 2010 and they could even make it able to use the same facilities as the shuttle allowing overlap of the programs.
This would prevent repeat of the disaster the apollo to shuttle hand over which is why skylab crashed in Australia and was which is partly why the challenger accident happened they were forced to rush the shuttle on a cut budget having no backup vehicle.
Ares I is junk just another medium class vehicle I feel it should be killed and the people behind it fired for wasting government money.
Actually the energia was far more efficient then the Saturn V which by todays standards would have very poor mass to payload performance.
Remember the Energia put it's payload into a 51 degree orbit with no upper stage this was a stage and half design.
The Saturn V's payload dropped to just under the energia's payload at that inclination.
Nothing on Ares I is man rated or even exists the 5 segment srb has never been flown the J2X does not exist and is based loosely on the J2S which has only been tested on an engine test stand.
The J2X's main structure will have to be completely different then the J2S as the industry no longer uses beryllium,hydra forming and welded steel tube nozzles.
These sound like small changes but this change in material and construction will have considerable implications on the design.
Man rating a delta IV heavy 35T upgrade would be a hell of a lot easier then getting Ares I to work.
At the very least the delta IV could be used as test mule for Orion before ares I is ready
The sad fact is we are being duped and the program is a train wreck in progress.
I suggest writing congress to ask for more money to alternative programs like COTS and to have the management at nasa fired.
The real problem is Ares I not Ares V a simple fikx would be to replace ares I with the more powerful Directlauncher or an Ares V derived crew launch vehicle.
Directlauncher has an advantage of being able to use existing four segment srbs and RS68s and makes use of the esiting shuttle launch towers this is a lot of money saved.
Since the J2S is no longer needed for the crew launch it also can be eliminated from the EDS by going to a centaur derived EDS that uses three RL60 engines vs a single J2.
This not only will save cost but make the lunar infrastructure more fault tolerant.
if the single J2S EDS fails to restart the Lunar stack becomes 140tons of space junk but with three Rl60s a single engine failure no longer means a mission failure and the problem of how to dispose of 140tons of rocket that will eventually explode adding to the space junk problem in LEO.
Nasa had also several close calls with Gemini and Apollo if you go by statistics the safest way to land a spacecraft is to have it land like an airplane as the shuttle does.
Between the shuttle and the X15 there have been nearly 300 missions between the two craft and just two reentry failures "Columbia was more a launch stack issue though but I'll count it anyway" this is a higher success rate then even soyuz.
Also a water landing Orion would have to be stable in 14 foot swells in a reliable fashion vs just for emergency's which are common in the north Atlantic being able to deal with this safely may actually add weight over airbags.
Also one reason the apollo capsule was not reflown was because the salt water damaged the electronics and RCS fuel system and it was decided it would be cheaper to just build another apollo.
The soviet TKS VA capsule an Apollo like craft was partly reusable and was the first partly reusable orbital spacecraft.
Directlauncher is not my idea http://www.directlauncher.com/
Though the centaur derived EDS is my own invention I came up with after reading the specs on the RL60.
Also the cluster of 3 rl60s is safer then a single J2 on the EDS because if the J2 fails to restart on the ESAS EDS you have 140tons of junk stuck in LEO that you must now dispose of .
But if one of the RL60s fails to light or even has a bad failure like a burn through no big deal just do a longer burn with the two remaining engines.
We just need to fire the Management at nasa as they are failing to to their job properly and are making one big mistake after another.
MMH or monomethyel hydrazine and saltwater do not play nice together plus the salt can dmaage electronics and you risk drowning the crew if the spacecraft sinks.
They might as well go to a lifting body design which also can perform lunar reenties when the skip manoeuvre is used.
This is being used by spacedev and planetspace who's craft are reported to be able to perform lunar flybys.
Spacedevs' choice of the HL20 over the X34 was due to lunar reentty performance the X34 shape got with in 200C of the failure point of the RCC TPS they wish to use on the leading edges during high speed lunar reentries which wouldn't be safe but also would also impact reusability of the vehicle's heat sheild.
But since they wish to use the apollo shape and it's poor mass to volume ratio they also should use an over powered booster for crew launch such as direct launcher which can deal with any unexpected weight increases vs Ares I which has no margin.
The delta IV can scale up to 50T on existing tooling so it should be the crew launch vehcile.
It can lift 35T using just regen RS68s and GEM60 strapon boosters something that can fly in two years from the word go.
A brain dead simple answer would be to use direct launcher http://www.directlauncher.com/ as the crew launch vehicle.
Direct launcher makes use of existing four segment srbs and existing RS68s plus it lifts 50tons in it's most basic form vs 25 for Ares I mass problem solved and 2 billion saved on Constellation.
The only answer I can think of right now is the fire Griffin it's the only way to save the project.
That or kill Orion outright and give all the budget to COTS type programs.
I see no hardware for Orion yet but spacex is now building and testing falcon 9 and Dragon.
We need to all write congress and get them to stop ares I and use direct launcher or and EELV.
As for water landings these are historically very unsafe if you go by statistics spacecraft landing like an airplane like the shuttle,X15,and SS1 is the safest way to land with a soyuz type landing being the second safest manner in which to land.
During the apollo program the crew was nearly killed twice by fuel reacting with sea water once during apollo 13 and another during the apollo soyuz test project.
We need to stop the stick before it kills a crew and it will as one of the most dangerous things one can do in engineering is cut corners trying to make a too tight mass budget.
Getting rid of Ares I for Direct launcher would be even cheaper and solve the mass issues there would be so much extra payload with the direct 132 and 246 combo the Orion can go back to a 5.5M base diameter and have an orbital module.
Another plus they can ax the J2S program and use a cluster of three RL60s on the EDS not only will this be cheaper the EDS can be 20 tons lighter.
I strongly recommend against ever landing in the Atlantic that would be stupid at best direct launcher has no air start events the srbs are not ignited until the two RS68s are started and proven healthy just like the shuttle's three SSMEs.
Ok so why not ditch the god awful ares I booster for direct launcher then all you mass troubles will disappear.
Also you will no longer need the J2X for anything as you would now only have two ground starting RS68s and can use the much more efficient RL60 for the EDS engines .
I wonder how many billions this will save I do know it will cut 3 years of development times and produce a far safer spacecraft.
Direct also makes use of proven 4 segment SRBs the crew launch vehicle and cargo vehicle now have many common parts vs almost non with ares I and V
Failure to much such simple an obvious changes to ESAS is why I've pretty much given up on Constellation.
This stubbornness is going to doom the project or at the very least cost the lives of a crew.
I now placed most of my fate in a continued US manned space program with new players like spacex.
New heavy lift vehicles like ares V and the falcon BFR will be able to lift 140 and 100 tons respectively into LEO as for getting it to GEO you use a solar electric ion tug and use just 10 to 15 tons of xenon getting your 100+ ton payload from LEO to GEO. They also would have a cost per Kg 3 to 7x lower then what we have today.
This is the latest load of bullshit I seen from sony BMG if I own the CD I can legally rip it into my mp3 player it's called fair use this was decided in the courts.
I say fuck Sony BMG and boycott them as they are assholes.
True but this is also why I stick with nokia they encourage third party development of apps and had zero issues with unlocking my phone. As for the bricking it might have been intentional as the jail breaking supposedly only changes values in the modem nv memory.
yah this solar system has over 100 planets and moons and countless asteroids and TNOs.
Also on interstellar travel two other possibilities one if you can reach 90% lightspeed time slows down option two it seems a warp drive could be possible see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.
Again no since this is a miniature z machine it would offer less to nuclear weapons testing research then existing ground z machines and inertial laser confinement fusion devices already do.
This is the propulsion holy grail we have been looking for high ISP plus high thrust. Also a zpinch device to make sub critical fission assemblies under go fission would not have to be any where near as powerful as the Sandia Z machine. This or vasimr or nuclear thermo is how we'll get to mars and beyond. On the subject anti nuclear in space views the cold hard facts are with out nuclear power and or propulsion in space human space flight will never progress beyond the moon and close NEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
That bill and all other pro IP bills that allow hollywood to sue grandmothers and 11 year old girls for 20K and more must be stopped and the people pushing them booted out of the country. Heck lets go farther and pull RIAA and MPAA people's skin off like wrapping paper and deck the halls with their guts.
I seen 32bit risc cpus implemented in fpgs but Niagara is a cutting edge 64bit design that makes core look crude for server and super computer applications. Not really suited for desktop apps yet as they tend to be single threaded still and can't make use of the 32 threads.
I'm surprised the government allowed Intel to take 65NM fab tech out of the country and to china of all places that really should not have been allowed and landed some big wigs in Leavenworth because it should have. BTW if nano assemblers tiny assembly lines for nanotech not to be confused with nanites which is pure scifi ever become possible yes home fabbing would become possible maybe even affordable. BTW the niagra chip even when built with 130nm tech still can do more flops per watt then intel's core architecture.
Are these batteries explosion resistant ie can you drive a nail though a cell and have it fail in a safe manner like the cells by A123 or will they explode like a firework like the trash sony sells? This is needed of they are to be used in an electric car.
Actually ISS can be caught up with in 3 hours if needed the 48 hour is just so they can get away with a low delta V and have a wide launch window. The 3 hour two orbit rendezvous was used for skylab missions and is being investigated by spacex so they can launch a crew of seven vs four. For the 48 hour ISS mission the back seats in dragon must be replaced with a WCS,and small gally. Soyuz only has 400 M/sec delta V and the shuttle 680 M/sec while apollo had over 1600M/sec and dragon maybe 1100 M/sec.
LM designed a very good lifting body CEV that made use of nothing but three CBC atlas V's this would have been cheap and extremely safe. This CEV was a real spaceship with an airlock redundant TPS and a low 2g reentry. But nasa wanted to use their much inferior design with no airlock and a poor mass to volume ratio. If nasa had issues over the RD180s aerojet has the rights to manufacture the engine in the US and eventually on a saturn V class wide body atlas V they could be replaced by the much more powerful TRW TR107 pintle injector engine. This engine would even be able to exceed the F1 in thrust eventually already beats it in ISP and did I mention it's reusable to boot a fly back first stage anyone? But if Nasa fails the private sector will give us a half dozen good capsules and mini shuttles by 2015 and spacex may even give us a Saturn V class RLV/EELV hybrid in the falcon BFR.
If NASA does not come through we need not worry as the private sector will come through where the government has failed. The Spacex BFR the rocket to follow the falcon 9 heavy will be a Saturn V class vehicle except it'll cost a fraction of the Saturn V since it'll be partly reusable and use simple pintle injector engines. Also there are several 12T to 40T private rockets and RLVs in the works and one can do a lunar mission with several cheap medium launches about five to seven of them as well.
Whats going on at nasa is a travesty and an example of government waste and stubbornness. They could fly Orion before 2010 and they could even make it able to use the same facilities as the shuttle allowing overlap of the programs. This would prevent repeat of the disaster the apollo to shuttle hand over which is why skylab crashed in Australia and was which is partly why the challenger accident happened they were forced to rush the shuttle on a cut budget having no backup vehicle. Ares I is junk just another medium class vehicle I feel it should be killed and the people behind it fired for wasting government money.
Actually the energia was far more efficient then the Saturn V which by todays standards would have very poor mass to payload performance. Remember the Energia put it's payload into a 51 degree orbit with no upper stage this was a stage and half design. The Saturn V's payload dropped to just under the energia's payload at that inclination.
Nothing on Ares I is man rated or even exists the 5 segment srb has never been flown the J2X does not exist and is based loosely on the J2S which has only been tested on an engine test stand. The J2X's main structure will have to be completely different then the J2S as the industry no longer uses beryllium ,hydra forming and welded steel tube nozzles.
These sound like small changes but this change in material and construction will have considerable implications on the design.
Man rating a delta IV heavy 35T upgrade would be a hell of a lot easier then getting Ares I to work.
At the very least the delta IV could be used as test mule for Orion before ares I is ready
The sad fact is we are being duped and the program is a train wreck in progress.
I suggest writing congress to ask for more money to alternative programs like COTS and to have the management at nasa fired.
The real problem is Ares I not Ares V a simple fikx would be to replace ares I with the more powerful Directlauncher or an Ares V derived crew launch vehicle. Directlauncher has an advantage of being able to use existing four segment srbs and RS68s and makes use of the esiting shuttle launch towers this is a lot of money saved. Since the J2S is no longer needed for the crew launch it also can be eliminated from the EDS by going to a centaur derived EDS that uses three RL60 engines vs a single J2. This not only will save cost but make the lunar infrastructure more fault tolerant. if the single J2S EDS fails to restart the Lunar stack becomes 140tons of space junk but with three Rl60s a single engine failure no longer means a mission failure and the problem of how to dispose of 140tons of rocket that will eventually explode adding to the space junk problem in LEO.
Nasa had also several close calls with Gemini and Apollo if you go by statistics the safest way to land a spacecraft is to have it land like an airplane as the shuttle does. Between the shuttle and the X15 there have been nearly 300 missions between the two craft and just two reentry failures "Columbia was more a launch stack issue though but I'll count it anyway" this is a higher success rate then even soyuz. Also a water landing Orion would have to be stable in 14 foot swells in a reliable fashion vs just for emergency's which are common in the north Atlantic being able to deal with this safely may actually add weight over airbags. Also one reason the apollo capsule was not reflown was because the salt water damaged the electronics and RCS fuel system and it was decided it would be cheaper to just build another apollo. The soviet TKS VA capsule an Apollo like craft was partly reusable and was the first partly reusable orbital spacecraft.
Directlauncher is not my idea http://www.directlauncher.com/ Though the centaur derived EDS is my own invention I came up with after reading the specs on the RL60. Also the cluster of 3 rl60s is safer then a single J2 on the EDS because if the J2 fails to restart on the ESAS EDS you have 140tons of junk stuck in LEO that you must now dispose of . But if one of the RL60s fails to light or even has a bad failure like a burn through no big deal just do a longer burn with the two remaining engines. We just need to fire the Management at nasa as they are failing to to their job properly and are making one big mistake after another.
MMH or monomethyel hydrazine and saltwater do not play nice together plus the salt can dmaage electronics and you risk drowning the crew if the spacecraft sinks. They might as well go to a lifting body design which also can perform lunar reenties when the skip manoeuvre is used. This is being used by spacedev and planetspace who's craft are reported to be able to perform lunar flybys. Spacedevs' choice of the HL20 over the X34 was due to lunar reentty performance the X34 shape got with in 200C of the failure point of the RCC TPS they wish to use on the leading edges during high speed lunar reentries which wouldn't be safe but also would also impact reusability of the vehicle's heat sheild. But since they wish to use the apollo shape and it's poor mass to volume ratio they also should use an over powered booster for crew launch such as direct launcher which can deal with any unexpected weight increases vs Ares I which has no margin.
The delta IV can scale up to 50T on existing tooling so it should be the crew launch vehcile. It can lift 35T using just regen RS68s and GEM60 strapon boosters something that can fly in two years from the word go.
A brain dead simple answer would be to use direct launcher http://www.directlauncher.com/ as the crew launch vehicle. Direct launcher makes use of existing four segment srbs and existing RS68s plus it lifts 50tons in it's most basic form vs 25 for Ares I mass problem solved and 2 billion saved on Constellation. The only answer I can think of right now is the fire Griffin it's the only way to save the project. That or kill Orion outright and give all the budget to COTS type programs. I see no hardware for Orion yet but spacex is now building and testing falcon 9 and Dragon.
We need to all write congress and get them to stop ares I and use direct launcher or and EELV. As for water landings these are historically very unsafe if you go by statistics spacecraft landing like an airplane like the shuttle,X15,and SS1 is the safest way to land with a soyuz type landing being the second safest manner in which to land. During the apollo program the crew was nearly killed twice by fuel reacting with sea water once during apollo 13 and another during the apollo soyuz test project. We need to stop the stick before it kills a crew and it will as one of the most dangerous things one can do in engineering is cut corners trying to make a too tight mass budget.
Getting rid of Ares I for Direct launcher would be even cheaper and solve the mass issues there would be so much extra payload with the direct 132 and 246 combo the Orion can go back to a 5.5M base diameter and have an orbital module. Another plus they can ax the J2S program and use a cluster of three RL60s on the EDS not only will this be cheaper the EDS can be 20 tons lighter. I strongly recommend against ever landing in the Atlantic that would be stupid at best direct launcher has no air start events the srbs are not ignited until the two RS68s are started and proven healthy just like the shuttle's three SSMEs.
Ok so why not ditch the god awful ares I booster for direct launcher then all you mass troubles will disappear. Also you will no longer need the J2X for anything as you would now only have two ground starting RS68s and can use the much more efficient RL60 for the EDS engines . I wonder how many billions this will save I do know it will cut 3 years of development times and produce a far safer spacecraft. Direct also makes use of proven 4 segment SRBs the crew launch vehicle and cargo vehicle now have many common parts vs almost non with ares I and V Failure to much such simple an obvious changes to ESAS is why I've pretty much given up on Constellation. This stubbornness is going to doom the project or at the very least cost the lives of a crew. I now placed most of my fate in a continued US manned space program with new players like spacex.
New heavy lift vehicles like ares V and the falcon BFR will be able to lift 140 and 100 tons respectively into LEO as for getting it to GEO you use a solar electric ion tug and use just 10 to 15 tons of xenon getting your 100+ ton payload from LEO to GEO.
They also would have a cost per Kg 3 to 7x lower then what we have today.
This is the latest load of bullshit I seen from sony BMG if I own the CD I can legally rip it into my mp3 player it's called fair use this was decided in the courts. I say fuck Sony BMG and boycott them as they are assholes.
True but this is also why I stick with nokia they encourage third party development of apps and had zero issues with unlocking my phone.
As for the bricking it might have been intentional as the jail breaking supposedly only changes values in the modem nv memory.
yah this solar system has over 100 planets and moons and countless asteroids and TNOs. Also on interstellar travel two other possibilities one if you can reach 90% lightspeed time slows down option two it seems a warp drive could be possible see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.
Again no since this is a miniature z machine it would offer less to nuclear weapons testing research then existing ground z machines and inertial laser confinement fusion devices already do.
This is the propulsion holy grail we have been looking for high ISP plus high thrust.
Also a zpinch device to make sub critical fission assemblies under go fission would not have to be any where near as powerful as the Sandia Z machine.
This or vasimr or nuclear thermo is how we'll get to mars and beyond.
On the subject anti nuclear in space views the cold hard facts are with out nuclear power and or propulsion in space human space flight will never progress beyond the moon and close NEOs.