>there's a good chance that they would immediately retaliate
Which is why multinational infrasound networks are being established- the pressure waves of a meteor, nuclear detonation, and conventional detonation are not only discernable, but detectable on other continents.
Oh, and an infrasound network recorded the shuttle breakup.
Strategically, there has been talk of the U.S. sharing sensor data with India, Pakistan, even Russia, to prevent accidental launches.
Aside from a bigger database of meteor recordings, researchers would like declassified infrared images from Air Force launch-warning satellites. These satellites have been seeing meteors for decades.
On-topic: missions to asteroids are the best way to determine their structural properties, and thus calibrate infrasound/IR databases.
>My understanding is that the two most important characteristics that threaten us is that the object has mass and will likely collide with earth. Both of these can be estimated quite well
First, we can't estimate those characteristics that well:
-Mass is derived from brightness, a notoriously unreliable figure. Ice is bright and lightweight, rock is dense and dull, and carbon compounds are dim and soft. We can derive volumes from asteroid occulations of background stars, but this is the cosmic equivalent of Morse code: very slow, very labor-intensive, and only available with significant infrastructure.
We can take a spectrum of the reflected light, but this only tells us what's on the surface, and nothing about porosity. Even so, spectra are difficult to take from dim, fast-moving bodies.
-Orbital parameters are estimates. It takes weeks of optical observations to nail the orbit of one dot on a dotted background. Asteroids are often "lost" when they aren't seen again before the orbit was determined. As the search expands, we're looking for more, dimmer bodies. The central clearinghouse of asteroid data (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) is begging for computers and volunteers for the bookkeeping alone, not even the parameter calculations.
We can add planetary radar to get a firm range, and pin the orbit instantly. Unfortunately, there are very few planetary radars, whose time is extremely limited and valuable. And physically, even the gigawatt-class radar at Goldstone can only reach so far, because photons are now dispersing on both legs of the trip.
Second, the history of a body can be backtracked to thousands of other bodies. Asteroids (and to a lesser extent, comets) are classifiable by orbit and geologic type- we can literally trace chips shattered off parent asteroids. But this requires even finer measurements of spectra and orbit.
A mission to asteroids chosen for "family potential," especially a mission to several such asteroids, tells us how chips have drifted from their parents, and weathered in time. Which tells us which asteroids are likely to be dangerous, and where they might come from.
Think of it this way: you can get sports scores live and for free, but people still pay for tickets. There's an understanding (interactions, behaviors, future potential) that only comes from study, and preferably study over time.
>What is with the obsession of finding solutions to earth/asteroid collisions?...as time goes by our odds of not getting hit only get better, as Jupiter and the Sun keep sucking up more
You actually answered your own question in a way. Jupiter and the Sun, and to a lesser extent Saturn and Mars, perturb small bodies into a Solar System Pachinko. Some bodies crash into Jupiter/etc., or approach close enough to be thrown effectively into the Sun, or out of the Solar system entirely.
But the vast majority of such encounters are just that, encounters, and the small body continues on a slightly different orbit. We know this because we can trace asteroid families by their geology- "chips off the old block," literally. By mapping the distributions of asteroids by family and current orbit, we can get a handle on orbital dynamics and thus, our odds in this crapshoot.
Unfortunately, asteroid classification needs good spectral data, which aren't that easy to take millions of miles away. And a probe can also check morphology, to see for example if Asteroid X is a single fragment, a pile of related or random fragments, or a parent body itself.
In other words, this project seeks slightly more "basic" science, "why" as opposed to "what's in it for me." Like the difference between watching a sporting event, and getting a blurb of the final score.
>Um sorry, but momentum is momentum. In space, the volume of the object doesn't really matter
Didn't get beyond freshman mechanics, I see? Momentum is momentum for ideal bodies. But asteroids aren't billard balls, and hey, even billiard balls don't always do what I want them to.
And _very_ unlike billiard balls, asteroids large enough to be threatening are large enough to experience gravity effects. Even if shattered, the pieces of an body may re-form due to mutual attraction. This is assuming the asteroid wasn't a rubble pile to begin with, in which case intergranular forces can absorb an impulse even in vacuum.
And who cares about mass estimates turning out low? The energy on that asteroid's impact is m*v^2. Relative velocity is determined by orbital mismatch versus the target (Earth), which is why comets (in highly eccentric, sometimes retrograde orbits) are considered more threatening than asteroids despite being "snowballs." Going from ice (1 g/cc) to rock (~3 g/cc) is no "big" increase in kinetic energy. Meanwhile, eccentricity can swing relative velocity through an order of magnitude, and energy by two orders of magnitude.
There are circumstances in which density (not mass) is very important- vaporizing the body's own surface for propulsion, or Yarkovsky-effect deflection.
Credentials: mechanical engineer, who works for NASA.
>Deploy this as a flexible solar sail. Generate electricity.
No, space applications are so far based on watts/kilogram. Current solar "sails" are thus high-efficiency, triple-junction Gallium Arsenide. In the future, though, true "sails" (tensioned areas) may use beads, but my money's on thin-film technologies. Maybe if solar cells were built with lunar silicon, though, since the low gravity there would form beads readily.
>Land on the 'insert celestial body here'. Unroll powerplant. Generate electricity.
>iirc the original background radiation measurements were done using a U2 (not the band, though it would be interesting) flying at some 70k ft, something about only a U2 can fly that steady
The atmosphere messes up your readings, by adding its own radiation. Get above the atmosphere, get a cleaner signal. Three options:
- A satellite. No atmosphere, no problem. - A high-altitude plane or balloon. If you can get really high (the U2 flies 2x higher than an airliner, an SR-71 3x, a balloon maybe 4x), you're not looking through much atmosphere. - The South Pole. The Pole itself is fairly high altitude (several thousand feet IIRC). More importantly, the air is very cold and dry, so it's much clearer in the infrared and microwave spectra.
This applies to all observations blocked by the atmosphere: IR, Mid- and Far-UV, X-Ray, Gamma Ray. In fact, radio has many bands that aren't too good at getting through air, and even visible appears clearer with less air between you and the object.
>Because we already PAID for them once when they were built.
Not a civil engineer, eh? Or an architect/urban planner? Or state/municipal administrator? Or economist, or construction worker, or even a snow shoveler or... what are you?
The closest way roads get to being a one-time expense is if they're bike paths. Even then they get weathered. Anything bigger and faster than a motorcycle degrades concrete, yes, concrete.
Even parking spaces have recurring costs. In addition to pothole-filling and salting/snowplowing, a parking space is "renting" valuable land that could be part of a store, home, etc. In a built-up area, such opportunity cost can be several thousand dollars a year.
For that matter, you don't appear to be a computer developer either.
>Seems to be higher octane, less polluting, and easier on the engine. It also gets slightly worse mileage. It's also a lot cheaper in the UK than "normal" gas, because it isn't so heavily taxed. I have no idea what it would cost in the USA
LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas, "Propane"):
*117-octane *Generally 2/3 the price of gasoline in U.S. *2/3 the range of gasoline, depending on the conversion *Engines can last _double_ the miles as on gasoline *Much less pollution. Used for warehouse vehicles for this reason *About 80% of U.S. propane is domestic *Several thousand stations in U.S., mostly in the Gulf states but also elsewhere *Can refill from 5-gallon "barbecue bottles" in an emergency *About the same explosion hazard as gasoline *Less poisonous if handled/inhaled
No, I am not connected with the propane industry. I looked into converting my truck to it.
>I can't help but wonder whether the reason they were excluded wasn't that it was basically un-enforcable for bikes...
Possibly, but remember bikes (both dino and human powered), scooters, mopeds etc. reduce congestion. Aside from being physically smaller, bikes can start, stop, turn, and park faster. Traffic then moves smoother. Think of bikes as anti-trucks/buses.
And don't whine to me about a car seating four or more. Stand on a street corner tomorrow, and tell me how many are doing so.
I see posts about "why should I be forced to give up my car..." This reminds me of that old saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
>The problem with saying "Let's get everything fixed up here, first" is this: It can't be done.
Well, it technically can, but that's not the point, I agree.
A few years back, there was a debate with Clarence Page (then-Chicago Tribune) and some right-winger: Does Racism Still Exist? The other guy pulled out his haymaker: If you could only solve one problem in the black community, racism or teen pregnancy, which would you choose?
He makes a good point, but Clarence Page didn't take the bait. His response: why do I have to choose? Are blacks somehow less deserving that we can only work on one problem at a time?
And if you don't think space exploration solves society's ills (okay, works on them), you need to look at the Columbia manifest. Try science.nasa.gov, for starters. It's not an objective, 3rd-party source, of course, but it's still informative.
Mod this guy up. I have Comcast cable, advertized as 400 (kbps?). We had a choice of Comcast cable or Verizon DSL (and tried both), so each was a reasonable $40-something a month. The deciding factor was uptime, sadly- there's a whole 'nuther topic.
However, file downloads are limited entirely by the back end. I can get several hundred kbps at dawn, but other times I consider myself lucky to get 25kB/s. Granted, this could be a backbone or file-server issue. Going to fiber wouldn't appear to help here.
I'll admit, plain-ol' surfing is definitely snappy, but even then the occasional server error renders the whole thing moot. If anything, I'd be willing to pay less for a slower but still modem-kicking connection. Especially since I hardly watch the cable TV.
Is cost, cost, cost. Who gives a shine about 99.9999% efficiency if no one will finance the thing? Hell, we can't even get builders to do PASSIVE solar.
>when you need the power most (night/winter)
In theory, yes, but some places need the most electricity during broad, summer daylight. That's when for-profit desktops tend to be on. Air conditioning, of course, is a massive energy hog. Even Chicago, frickin' Chicago, runs enough air conditioners to risk brownouts some summers.
Even if solar is just "a valuable complement to something else," the difference between energy crisis and energy apathy is a few percent. Such is microeconomics. Generating just a few percent of our juice/heat from non-fossil is enough to turn around financial and strategic policies.
>I'm sure the Purdue people would love an excuse to light up a new engine.
They already have an excuse- as caustic as people make H2O2 out to be, it's still safer than hydrazine, which is what is used today. Aside from being explosive (hence useful), hydrazine is carcinogenic and an inhalation hazard. Strict bunny-suiting required.
Peroxide would require only splash shields and, I believe, filter masks.
Some contractors (Aerojet?) have already received grants for H2O2 demonstrators- not primary propulsion, just maneuvering thrusters. There, you need the most safety, and you can accept a small performance drop.
>Research into hydrogen peroxide rockets was done in during WWII, and actually made it into some experimental applications, I believe...
IIRC peroxide torpedoes. Because the propulsion was chemical instead of mechanical, all you needed was a nice strong tank and "combustion" chamber. Since the war already stretched everyone's industrial capacity, a dumb steel shell (already in water for "afterburning") made a natural H2O2 application.
Someone did a study: Gay = tech. Areas with IT representation ("tech corridors") coincide neatly with homosexual representation: Silicon Valley, Boston, N. Virginia, Illinois I-80, etc. The Washington Post said this, and I think they were quoting some other source too.
Neither I nor the Post think correlation == causation. I think computer professionals are just educated and salaried, and thus want the same amenities (Borders, Starbucks, not getting mugged) as art professionals. The fact that they pick the same neighborhoods is just logical.
(Another study that showed when offices relocate, they overwhelmingly move closer to the CEO's house. Same principle, different demographic.)
Still, IT professionals and art professionals aren't too different. Haven't heard many NFL players moving on to dot.com startups- not that there's anything wrong with that.
You're outgrowing TV, consider yourself blessed. The red pill it ain't, but you free up a lot of time and mindshare once you just say "who gives a rat's ass who'd f*cking Rachel this week."
>How long untill we're not ALLOWED to turn off our TVs? How long before our TVs watch what WE'RE doing so advertisers can see what effect they're having?
Jamie Kellner (Turner, and therefore TBS, WB, Cartoon Network, the whole CNN league) said in an interview with Inside:
"I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom..."
And both Tivo and Replay PVRs record your usage. Both have modem lines; Tivo expressly states that it logs your data and demographics.
>Hard drives have a vent (which is a filter with extremely small holes) which allows the air pressure inside and outside of the drive to remain equalized.
Hmmm, I guess there are two types of drives then. A former supervisor of mine flew an experiment on a NASA U-2. The drives had to be in a pressure box, even though we were still a ways from the vacuum of space. The problem was that the HD's cases would bulge, just enough to screw up head tracking.
No, the Pentagon effectively bailed on the STS after Challenger. Call it reactionary, logistical, or simply wise, we can now blow up Iraq ten times over with no Shuttle.
>It's safe to say Ramon's nationality turned him from a successful Israeli pilot to astronaut.
I won't disagree that there are politics involved (and that news coverage reminds me of my toilet-paper coverage) but have you read the man's (or any of their) bio?
Ramon is believed to have flown in the 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, in which the containment building was bombed enough to be rendered useless...but NOT enough to release radioactive material...with UNGUIDED bombs!
No, I'm not Jewish or Zionist, just giving credit where credit's due.
>Last I checked the U.S. Constitution, Congress still handled appropriations,
De jure yes, but in practice 435 people aren't going to agree on anything, much less write it up. Hence all yearly budgets are written by the party in power (Prez in name, his staff in reality), then submitted for vote by a Representative from that party.
On-Topic: Shuttle spending has decreased across the board, no matter who's in the White House. NASA doesn't really get anyone elected or booted (at least at the national level), so after our yearly appropriations, we're pretty much left to ourselves.
During the main part of reentry, the orbiter actually flies barn-door style. This increases the aerodynamic stress but reduces the thermal stress: total heat = Mass*velocity^2, but temperature = total heat/area. As speeds and temperatures go down, the orbiter gradually tilts back to "plane" mode.
Damage by atmospheric pressure is plausible, and damage to a pressurized compartment is physically possible, but... my theory is that roasting either damaged the aluminum structure by altering the metallography. Or popped a hydraulic line, if tile damage was at the wing, or a thruster line if at the OMS pods.
>In true capitalism, pirate radio stations would probably spring up all over
Stamp my passport right now. I was in a backwater town in the Philippines, and heard the Backstreet Boys and Shania Twain. I got home and scoured the stores for And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead's "Madonna," Neko Case, and live James Brown.
If the FCC allowed "pirate" radio stations, I'll be the first in line to put a dipole up Clear Channel's "freedom."
>I believe that the consolidation of radio stations has removed the competition argument against microbroadcast licensing.
So why did the FCC kill microradio (legit, 2-Watt stations, not webcasting), and approve IBOC (Clear Channel, et al's 500-Watt homesteading of the unused dial)? See www.diymedia.net/audio/mp3fcciboc.htm
Because FCC chair Michael Powell is the broadcast equivalent of a Taiwan integrator (no offense to anyone except Powell). I don't care if your station/board is sh*t, as long as I keep my job. There's nothing in microbroadcasting for him or anyone he cares about.
>If you want to restore true fairness to the radio environment, get rid of the FCC.
Yes, then we can replicate good stations by jamming bad ones. A microwave burst with a $50 dish behind (www.dudleylab.com) should enforce "democracy" on your $2,000,000 transmitter. I got ya Invisible Hand right heah...
I agree with you in the abstract, but it's because FCC chairman Michael Powell is the industry's gimp, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
>there's a good chance that they would immediately retaliate
Which is why multinational infrasound networks are being established- the pressure waves of a meteor, nuclear detonation, and conventional detonation are not only discernable, but detectable on other continents.
Oh, and an infrasound network recorded the shuttle breakup.
Strategically, there has been talk of the U.S. sharing sensor data with India, Pakistan, even Russia, to prevent accidental launches.
Aside from a bigger database of meteor recordings, researchers would like declassified infrared images from Air Force launch-warning satellites. These satellites have been seeing meteors for decades.
On-topic: missions to asteroids are the best way to determine their structural properties, and thus calibrate infrasound/IR databases.
>My understanding is that the two most important characteristics that threaten us is that the object has mass and will likely collide with earth. Both of these can be estimated quite well
First, we can't estimate those characteristics that well:
-Mass is derived from brightness, a notoriously unreliable figure. Ice is bright and lightweight, rock is dense and dull, and carbon compounds are dim and soft. We can derive volumes from asteroid occulations of background stars, but this is the cosmic equivalent of Morse code: very slow, very labor-intensive, and only available with significant infrastructure.
We can take a spectrum of the reflected light, but this only tells us what's on the surface, and nothing about porosity. Even so, spectra are difficult to take from dim, fast-moving bodies.
-Orbital parameters are estimates. It takes weeks of optical observations to nail the orbit of one dot on a dotted background. Asteroids are often "lost" when they aren't seen again before the orbit was determined. As the search expands, we're looking for more, dimmer bodies. The central clearinghouse of asteroid data (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) is begging for computers and volunteers for the bookkeeping alone, not even the parameter calculations.
We can add planetary radar to get a firm range, and pin the orbit instantly. Unfortunately, there are very few planetary radars, whose time is extremely limited and valuable. And physically, even the gigawatt-class radar at Goldstone can only reach so far, because photons are now dispersing on both legs of the trip.
Second, the history of a body can be backtracked to thousands of other bodies. Asteroids (and to a lesser extent, comets) are classifiable by orbit and geologic type- we can literally trace chips shattered off parent asteroids. But this requires even finer measurements of spectra and orbit.
A mission to asteroids chosen for "family potential," especially a mission to several such asteroids, tells us how chips have drifted from their parents, and weathered in time. Which tells us which asteroids are likely to be dangerous, and where they might come from.
Think of it this way: you can get sports scores live and for free, but people still pay for tickets. There's an understanding (interactions, behaviors, future potential) that only comes from study, and preferably study over time.
>What is with the obsession of finding solutions to earth/asteroid collisions? ...as time goes by our odds of not getting hit only get better, as Jupiter and the Sun keep sucking up more
You actually answered your own question in a way. Jupiter and the Sun, and to a lesser extent Saturn and Mars, perturb small bodies into a Solar System Pachinko. Some bodies crash into Jupiter/etc., or approach close enough to be thrown effectively into the Sun, or out of the Solar system entirely.
But the vast majority of such encounters are just that, encounters, and the small body continues on a slightly different orbit. We know this because we can trace asteroid families by their geology- "chips off the old block," literally. By mapping the distributions of asteroids by family and current orbit, we can get a handle on orbital dynamics and thus, our odds in this crapshoot.
Unfortunately, asteroid classification needs good spectral data, which aren't that easy to take millions of miles away. And a probe can also check morphology, to see for example if Asteroid X is a single fragment, a pile of related or random fragments, or a parent body itself.
In other words, this project seeks slightly more "basic" science, "why" as opposed to "what's in it for me." Like the difference between watching a sporting event, and getting a blurb of the final score.
>Um sorry, but momentum is momentum. In space, the volume of the object doesn't really matter
Didn't get beyond freshman mechanics, I see? Momentum is momentum for ideal bodies. But asteroids aren't billard balls, and hey, even billiard balls don't always do what I want them to.
And _very_ unlike billiard balls, asteroids large enough to be threatening are large enough to experience gravity effects. Even if shattered, the pieces of an body may re-form due to mutual attraction. This is assuming the asteroid wasn't a rubble pile to begin with, in which case intergranular forces can absorb an impulse even in vacuum.
And who cares about mass estimates turning out low? The energy on that asteroid's impact is m*v^2. Relative velocity is determined by orbital mismatch versus the target (Earth), which is why comets (in highly eccentric, sometimes retrograde orbits) are considered more threatening than asteroids despite being "snowballs." Going from ice (1 g/cc) to rock (~3 g/cc) is no "big" increase in kinetic energy. Meanwhile, eccentricity can swing relative velocity through an order of magnitude, and energy by two orders of magnitude.
There are circumstances in which density (not mass) is very important- vaporizing the body's own surface for propulsion, or Yarkovsky-effect deflection.
Credentials: mechanical engineer, who works for NASA.
>Deploy this as a flexible solar sail. Generate electricity.
No, space applications are so far based on watts/kilogram. Current solar "sails" are thus high-efficiency, triple-junction Gallium Arsenide. In the future, though, true "sails" (tensioned areas) may use beads, but my money's on thin-film technologies. Maybe if solar cells were built with lunar silicon, though, since the low gravity there would form beads readily.
>Land on the 'insert celestial body here'. Unroll powerplant. Generate electricity.
Again, solar thin-films could do this already.
>iirc the original background radiation measurements were done using a U2 (not the band, though it would be interesting) flying at some 70k ft, something about only a U2 can fly that steady
The atmosphere messes up your readings, by adding its own radiation. Get above the atmosphere, get a cleaner signal. Three options:
- A satellite. No atmosphere, no problem.
- A high-altitude plane or balloon. If you can get really high (the U2 flies 2x higher than an airliner, an SR-71 3x, a balloon maybe 4x), you're not looking through much atmosphere.
- The South Pole. The Pole itself is fairly high altitude (several thousand feet IIRC). More importantly, the air is very cold and dry, so it's much clearer in the infrared and microwave spectra.
This applies to all observations blocked by the atmosphere: IR, Mid- and Far-UV, X-Ray, Gamma Ray. In fact, radio has many bands that aren't too good at getting through air, and even visible appears clearer with less air between you and the object.
>Because we already PAID for them once when they were built.
Not a civil engineer, eh? Or an architect/urban planner? Or state/municipal administrator? Or economist, or construction worker, or even a snow shoveler or... what are you?
The closest way roads get to being a one-time expense is if they're bike paths. Even then they get weathered. Anything bigger and faster than a motorcycle degrades concrete, yes, concrete.
Even parking spaces have recurring costs. In addition to pothole-filling and salting/snowplowing, a parking space is "renting" valuable land that could be part of a store, home, etc. In a built-up area, such opportunity cost can be several thousand dollars a year.
For that matter, you don't appear to be a computer developer either.
>Seems to be higher octane, less polluting, and easier on the engine. It also gets slightly worse mileage. It's also a lot cheaper in the UK than "normal" gas, because it isn't so heavily taxed. I have no idea what it would cost in the USA
LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas, "Propane"):
*117-octane
*Generally 2/3 the price of gasoline in U.S.
*2/3 the range of gasoline, depending on the conversion
*Engines can last _double_ the miles as on gasoline
*Much less pollution. Used for warehouse vehicles for this reason
*About 80% of U.S. propane is domestic
*Several thousand stations in U.S., mostly in the Gulf states but also elsewhere
*Can refill from 5-gallon "barbecue bottles" in an emergency
*About the same explosion hazard as gasoline
*Less poisonous if handled/inhaled
No, I am not connected with the propane industry. I looked into converting my truck to it.
>I can't help but wonder whether the reason they were excluded wasn't that it was basically un-enforcable for bikes...
Possibly, but remember bikes (both dino and human powered), scooters, mopeds etc. reduce congestion. Aside from being physically smaller, bikes can start, stop, turn, and park faster. Traffic then moves smoother. Think of bikes as anti-trucks/buses.
And don't whine to me about a car seating four or more. Stand on a street corner tomorrow, and tell me how many are doing so.
I see posts about "why should I be forced to give up my car..." This reminds me of that old saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
>The problem with saying "Let's get everything fixed up here, first" is this: It can't be done.
Well, it technically can, but that's not the point, I agree.
A few years back, there was a debate with Clarence Page (then-Chicago Tribune) and some right-winger: Does Racism Still Exist? The other guy pulled out his haymaker: If you could only solve one problem in the black community, racism or teen pregnancy, which would you choose?
He makes a good point, but Clarence Page didn't take the bait. His response: why do I have to choose? Are blacks somehow less deserving that we can only work on one problem at a time?
And if you don't think space exploration solves society's ills (okay, works on them), you need to look at the Columbia manifest. Try science.nasa.gov, for starters. It's not an objective, 3rd-party source, of course, but it's still informative.
Mod this guy up. I have Comcast cable, advertized as 400 (kbps?). We had a choice of Comcast cable or Verizon DSL (and tried both), so each was a reasonable $40-something a month. The deciding factor was uptime, sadly- there's a whole 'nuther topic.
However, file downloads are limited entirely by the back end. I can get several hundred kbps at dawn, but other times I consider myself lucky to get 25kB/s. Granted, this could be a backbone or file-server issue. Going to fiber wouldn't appear to help here.
I'll admit, plain-ol' surfing is definitely snappy, but even then the occasional server error renders the whole thing moot. If anything, I'd be willing to pay less for a slower but still modem-kicking connection. Especially since I hardly watch the cable TV.
>The problem with solar power today
Is cost, cost, cost. Who gives a shine about 99.9999% efficiency if no one will finance the thing? Hell, we can't even get builders to do PASSIVE solar.
>when you need the power most (night/winter)
In theory, yes, but some places need the most electricity during broad, summer daylight. That's when for-profit desktops tend to be on. Air conditioning, of course, is a massive energy hog. Even Chicago, frickin' Chicago, runs enough air conditioners to risk brownouts some summers.
Even if solar is just "a valuable complement to something else," the difference between energy crisis and energy apathy is a few percent. Such is microeconomics. Generating just a few percent of our juice/heat from non-fossil is enough to turn around financial and strategic policies.
>But you can flip those numbers around and say we've achieved a 90% decrease
But the solar figure of merit is Watts/$. Has been and will continue to be. How will a micro-tailored coating help- in fact, might it hurt?
The solar breakthrough will probably be in mnufacturing, not materials.
That said, I'm an amateur astronomer, and would snap this stuff up if the price wasn't ridiculous.
>I'm sure the Purdue people would love an excuse to light up a new engine.
They already have an excuse- as caustic as people make H2O2 out to be, it's still safer than hydrazine, which is what is used today. Aside from being explosive (hence useful), hydrazine is carcinogenic and an inhalation hazard. Strict bunny-suiting required.
Peroxide would require only splash shields and, I believe, filter masks.
Some contractors (Aerojet?) have already received grants for H2O2 demonstrators- not primary propulsion, just maneuvering thrusters. There, you need the most safety, and you can accept a small performance drop.
>Research into hydrogen peroxide rockets was done in during WWII, and actually made it into some experimental applications, I believe...
IIRC peroxide torpedoes. Because the propulsion was chemical instead of mechanical, all you needed was a nice strong tank and "combustion" chamber. Since the war already stretched everyone's industrial capacity, a dumb steel shell (already in water for "afterburning") made a natural H2O2 application.
Someone did a study: Gay = tech. Areas with IT representation ("tech corridors") coincide neatly with homosexual representation: Silicon Valley, Boston, N. Virginia, Illinois I-80, etc. The Washington Post said this, and I think they were quoting some other source too.
Neither I nor the Post think correlation == causation. I think computer professionals are just educated and salaried, and thus want the same amenities (Borders, Starbucks, not getting mugged) as art professionals. The fact that they pick the same neighborhoods is just logical.
(Another study that showed when offices relocate, they overwhelmingly move closer to the CEO's house. Same principle, different demographic.)
Still, IT professionals and art professionals aren't too different. Haven't heard many NFL players moving on to dot.com startups- not that there's anything wrong with that.
>is it just me or is TV getting dumber and dumber
You're outgrowing TV, consider yourself blessed. The red pill it ain't, but you free up a lot of time and mindshare once you just say "who gives a rat's ass who'd f*cking Rachel this week."
>How long untill we're not ALLOWED to turn off our TVs? How long before our TVs watch what WE'RE doing so advertisers can see what effect they're having?
Jamie Kellner (Turner, and therefore TBS, WB, Cartoon Network, the whole CNN league) said in an interview with Inside:
"I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom..."
And both Tivo and Replay PVRs record your usage. Both have modem lines; Tivo expressly states that it logs your data and demographics.
>Hard drives have a vent (which is a filter with extremely small holes) which allows the air pressure inside and outside of the drive to remain equalized.
Hmmm, I guess there are two types of drives then. A former supervisor of mine flew an experiment on a NASA U-2. The drives had to be in a pressure box, even though we were still a ways from the vacuum of space. The problem was that the HD's cases would bulge, just enough to screw up head tracking.
>The bulk of the shuttle's missions are military
No, the Pentagon effectively bailed on the STS after Challenger. Call it reactionary, logistical, or simply wise, we can now blow up Iraq ten times over with no Shuttle.
>It's safe to say Ramon's nationality turned him from a successful Israeli pilot to astronaut.
I won't disagree that there are politics involved (and that news coverage reminds me of my toilet-paper coverage) but have you read the man's (or any of their) bio?
Ramon is believed to have flown in the 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, in which the containment building was bombed enough to be rendered useless...but NOT enough to release radioactive material...with UNGUIDED bombs!
No, I'm not Jewish or Zionist, just giving credit where credit's due.
>Last I checked the U.S. Constitution, Congress still handled appropriations,
De jure yes, but in practice 435 people aren't going to agree on anything, much less write it up. Hence all yearly budgets are written by the party in power (Prez in name, his staff in reality), then submitted for vote by a Representative from that party.
On-Topic: Shuttle spending has decreased across the board, no matter who's in the White House. NASA doesn't really get anyone elected or booted (at least at the national level), so after our yearly appropriations, we're pretty much left to ourselves.
Not to nit-pick, but here's some more details.
During the main part of reentry, the orbiter actually flies barn-door style. This increases the aerodynamic stress but reduces the thermal stress: total heat = Mass*velocity^2, but temperature = total heat/area. As speeds and temperatures go down, the orbiter gradually tilts back to "plane" mode.
Damage by atmospheric pressure is plausible, and damage to a pressurized compartment is physically possible, but... my theory is that roasting either damaged the aluminum structure by altering the metallography. Or popped a hydraulic line, if tile damage was at the wing, or a thruster line if at the OMS pods.
>In true capitalism, pirate radio stations would probably spring up all over
Stamp my passport right now. I was in a backwater town in the Philippines, and heard the Backstreet Boys and Shania Twain. I got home and scoured the stores for And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead's "Madonna," Neko Case, and live James Brown.
If the FCC allowed "pirate" radio stations, I'll be the first in line to put a dipole up Clear Channel's "freedom."
>I believe that the consolidation of radio stations has removed the competition argument against microbroadcast licensing.
So why did the FCC kill microradio (legit, 2-Watt stations, not webcasting), and approve IBOC (Clear Channel, et al's 500-Watt homesteading of the unused dial)? See www.diymedia.net/audio/mp3fcciboc.htm
Because FCC chair Michael Powell is the broadcast equivalent of a Taiwan integrator (no offense to anyone except Powell). I don't care if your station/board is sh*t, as long as I keep my job. There's nothing in microbroadcasting for him or anyone he cares about.
>If you want to restore true fairness to the radio environment, get rid of the FCC.
Yes, then we can replicate good stations by jamming bad ones. A microwave burst with a $50 dish behind (www.dudleylab.com) should enforce "democracy" on your $2,000,000 transmitter. I got ya Invisible Hand right heah...
I agree with you in the abstract, but it's because FCC chairman Michael Powell is the industry's gimp, not the other way around.