While this thing might be very good for evading a country's terminal defenses (like Patriot missile batteries), there isn't any indication whatsoever that this weapon would be any more stealthy; it still uses staged launch vehicles.
A country doesn't know it is being attacked when warheads start appearing in the skies above it, it (or at least the great powers) know it is being attacked when it sees the missiles coming out of their silos (or out of the ocean from subs). Then in the 5-30 minutes it's got, it decides whether it is a false alarm. I guess if tensions are really bad and it is SURE that this is an actual attack, it will "launch on warning" that is launch before the attacking missiles start exploding. Otherwise it'll just ride things out (that's why ground missiles are in hardened silos, bombers are aloft in time of crisis and subs are at sea) and wait to see what the "fallout" is (groan) before counter-attacking.
What does this hypersonic warhead do to a great power other than (as I said) possibly evading terminal defenses? Nothing except get to the target slower than a ballistic missile. The launch had already been detected by infra-red sensors in orbiting satellites and the coarse trajectory already tracked by long-range radar (remember NORAD?). Since no country has a good ABM system (even the U.S. only has one capable of knocking down a few primitive missiles from rogue nations), a hypervelocity MANEUVERABLE warhead would provide no additional benefit. It would get there slower, cost more and carry less.
For possible REAL applications think of it as a conventional weapons system of uncommon speed. (You can look at my post about marrying it with MOPs).
Didn't know that the Titan was a quick launch vehicle but I guess it had to be (it was in silos). I wonder what its purpose was for, it was a (comparatively) heavy lift rocket, was it to loft really large warheads? (I guess I can google this).
I think it was the launch vehicle Cochran used in Star Trek: First Contact was it not? I don't think the Gemini astronauts were launched out of a silo though.
So does this support or refute the contention that reality is made up of a very very large number of universes constantly being created at each quantum step? Isn't that what the Copenhagen interpretation implied?
Here's a repost of my post I submitted yesterday (don't know why they rejected it, probably thought I was too hair brained).
Anyway, here are some applications for a lighter than air substance!
wisebabo writes "Wow, so here's something that beats even aerogel (which I understand is 99.9% empty space; this new material made from metal, is 99.99% empty space!)!
Anyway, in typical slashdot.fashion, knowing nothing about its mechanical properties (other than the article says it could be a good insulator or sound absorber) not to mention knowing nothing about how it is made or what it costs, let me propose two applications:
1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!
2) Find a way to make this from its raw materials in a vacuum and in zero-g (hopefully it won't require a large amount of super-critical fluids like liquid CO2 that aerogels do). Launch a not-too-heavy manufacturing plant into LEO and make a (VERY) big cube or sphere of this stuff. Voila! Just like aerogels, you'll have a material that'll be perfect for capturing or at least slowing down all the hypervelocity space junk just like the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes did. This'll be perfect for getting all the tiny particles and "flakes" that are too small to chase down, zap with a laser or perhaps even track via telescope or radar. Because it's very light, it'll be economical to launch something very big. (Best to attach an ion engine or some low thrust, high efficiency engine to change/maintain orbit).
2b) Oh well, as long as we're dreaming; if you can make this in space, it'd be perfect for making heat shields that weigh almost nothing (and are very very compact to launch because you're just launching the raw materials right?). Could be useful for any probe that's heading to any planet with an atmosphere or reentry to earth. Good for BIG solar shields (a la the movie "Sunshine") also.
2c) Okay, last one, I promise. If it deforms in a predictable manner, how about using it as an "airbag" replacement? After the (huge) heat shield has done it's work, the space probe could be cushioned upon impact with something stronger than an airbag without being prohibitively heavy. (Won't have to use that crazy "sky crane" like they're going to try with the MSL).
Anyway, here's to totally uninformed speculation!"
I guess the editors didn't appreciate my flights of fancy!
wisebabo writes "Wow, so here's something that beats even aerogel (which I understand is 99.9% empty space; this new material made from metal, is 99.99% empty space!)!
Anyway, in typical slashdot.fashion, knowing nothing about its mechanical properties (other than the article says it could be a good insulator or sound absorber) not to mention knowing nothing about how it is made or what it costs, let me propose two applications:
1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!
2) Find a way to make this from its raw materials in a vacuum and in zero-g (hopefully it won't require a large amount of super-critical fluids like liquid CO2 that aerogels do). Launch a not-too-heavy manufacturing plant into LEO and make a (VERY) big cube or sphere of this stuff. Voila! Just like aerogels, you'll have a material that'll be perfect for capturing or at least slowing down all the hypervelocity space junk just like the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes did. This'll be perfect for getting all the tiny particles and "flakes" that are too small to chase down, zap with a laser or perhaps even track via telescope or radar. Because it's very light, it'll be economical to launch something very big. (Best to attach an ion engine or some low thrust, high efficiency engine to change/maintain orbit).
2b) Oh well, as long as we're dreaming; if you can make this in space, it'd be perfect for making heat shields that weigh almost nothing (and are very very compact to launch because you're just launching the raw materials right?). Could be useful for any probe that's heading to any planet with an atmosphere or reentry to earth. Good for BIG solar shields (a la the movie "Sunshine") also.
2c) Okay, last one, I promise. If it deforms in a predictable manner, how about using it as an "airbag" replacement? After the (huge) heat shield has done it's work, the space probe could be cushioned upon impact with something stronger than an airbag without being prohibitively heavy. (Won't have to use that crazy "sky crane" like they're going to try with the MSL).
Anyway, here's to totally uninformed speculation!"
Oh, I forgot. This, by the way reminds me of what the Nazi's tried to do with the Sanger(?) "skip bomber" which when launched by a sub-orbital V-2 would send a manned (one pilot) space-craft skipping across the upper atmosphere to bomb targets on the other side of the planet.
Of course since they didn't have guidance technology good enough, it had to be manned, and because thy didn't have big enough boosters it had to be sub-orbital, and because they didn't have THE BOMB it was hardly worth it just to drop a few tons of explosive. But hey, if they had these things they could've won!
A big 30,000 warhead designed to blow up things DEEP underground might even do a better job if delivered at hypersonic speeds, think "rods from god". (It'll have to be redisgned to take the much higher impact speed but that's what engineers are for!) The fact that it is delivered on a (much) more expensive booster is mitigated by the fact that you don't need to use a B-2 to deliver it. This gives you two advantages: 1) the (admittedly low) risk of human crew loss (and loss of a $2B bomber) goes to zero and 2) you can now attack IN DAYLIGHT (B-2s lose their stealth advantage because they are not invisible to visible light, just radar and have low infrared profiles. So I figure any Iranian fighter pilot could easily shoot down the subsonic aircraft during the day).
Paradoxically they may NOT be as good a first strike weapon as a B-2 bomber against a great power because presumably Russia (and China?) can detect missile launches anywhere in the world more easily than a stealthy B-2. Against some country like Iran or North Korea however, they give the commander in Chief the ability to hit a target very quickly, with almost zero chance of interception, with the power of redirection (or abort) and during daylight (which would be very useful if you want to KILL all THE high value PEOPLE working there). Combined with a MOP you can go after even the deep ultra-high value targets although in order to do so you'd probably need to develop a new heavily solid fuel launcher (the old minuteman and MX don't have the throw weight and liquid fueled rockets aren't exactly things you can launch on a moment's notice).
Here are my comments that I attached to this post while it was in slashdot/recent. I guess the editors didn't take much heed.
RTFA
Ok, I know that the LA times is not what I would call the paragon of great journalism but still you should closely RTFA. (Compare the writing in this, where the writer just seems to go on and on reciting facts without concise summarization and a coherent narrative to that of a well written NYTimes piece).
First the fact that these guys "are long time political donors" and "65% of their donations went to the Democratic party in 2008 and 2010" do not automatically make them "longtime Democratic donors". I'm not saying they aren't but don't jump to conclusions (Isn't it possible that these guys, seeing the way the political winds were shifting sent more of their money to the Democrats those years? Also if they gave only 65% to anyone that implies they weren't hardcore supporters, they didn't give 100% did they?).
Second; according to TFA most of the company's actions took place under the Bush administration. The company was formed after Bush made anti-bio weapons preparedness a priority and the Bush administration were the ones who gave the company its grants (did they receive even a dime under the Obama administration?).
Third; again according to TFA, the reason for the "sole source" agreement is because of a regulation otherwise requiring them to be a small business (they aren't, they have more than 500 people). So, according to TFA, that was the reason they had to do this and not because the Bush?/Obama? administration unduly applied pressure.
I could go on and say how, in TFA, some epidemiologists think it's a waste of money and how other, equally credentialed ones say it isn't. Still, please note that it DOES have a use beyond the original vaccine. If you get sick and don't get the original vaccine within four days, this will save you. Otherwise you die. Is that a waste of money? Reasonable people may disagree. (Smallpox the physical virus MAY* be present in only two locations but I believe its DNA sequence was published on the Internet).
Look, maybe the poorly written LA times article caused these mistakes in the summary. But that's what you get when you choose poor journalism. You should be prepared to put in the time and effort to get what is (hopefully) the true story behind the ill-presented facts.
*you could probably retrieve some from someone buried in the arctic prior to say 1950. That's how they retrieved the black plague recently.
If it's a fractal antenna then perhaps this allows the antenna to be much shorter than its wavelength and still radiate enough power to do something useful.
So what use would a extremely long wavelength radio transmitter/receiver be used for? Since it's in a military zone I'd guess it's so communicate with their growing fleet of nuclear subs (I don't know if they have ballistic missile subs but even attack subs need command and control). This is because these wavelengths penetrate water (and the amount of data that needs to be sent can be very small like "use attack plan F").
Of course if it was a scientific project I could imagine astronomers would be very interested in being able to look at this previously unexamined part of the spectrum (there was an Arthur C. Clarke story about a gigantic space based observatory that discovered incredibly huge space life forms through their use of this part of the spectrum). Or perhaps ultra-long wavelengths penetrate the ground for geological surveys?
Is there any benefit to moving to ultrasonic frequencies? Other than making it inaudible (so you don't bother people but maybe dogs!), would this improve the resolution? Does the range decrease? Do consumer level devices cover such a broad spectrum?
By the way, has anyone made an iOS or Android App that can record in the ultrasound (or infrasonic) ranges and change it so that we can listen in audible ranges? Might be neat to see/hear what the bats are doing!
Also, how DO bats build up a good 3D map of their surroundings using just one "speaker" and two "microphones"? Do they send out beams or are their ears swiveling? And, with the limited amount of computing power on a smartphone, would it be able to duplicate it? A bat's brain doesn't seem particularly large and they are doing this FAST (on the fly, ha ha).
Well research in this vein (ha ha) should continue if for no other reason than it would be great to be able to have a big juicy steak on a space ship! Of course one could see all sorts of interesting (bad) things happening due to the combination of zero-g, cosmic rays and endlessly multiplying cells!
Does anyone know if there are any experiments in trying to make fish meat (sushi) along these lines? Pound for pound (or ounce for ounce) perfectly made uniform slabs of high grade fish have got to be the most expensive/valuable bits of non-human protein on the planet. I mean when a single (big) tuna costs several hundred thousand dollars in the Tokyo fish market, you know there could be profit for even an expensive technology.
Finally, (I know this is gross), would eating synthesized human flesh be considered cannibalism? I mean is cannibalism bad because you had to kill someone to eat or is it bad because you are eating meat with similar DNA? (Actually, it's probably the latter because it exposes you to all sorts of diseases that normally wouldn't survive because you'd be eating a different species). And would it taste like chicken?
... our turn is next with the very expensive (most expensive since Viking?) extremely ambitious (nuclear powered, "sky crane" lowered) giant (size of a mini-cooper) rover with no-backup! (no second rover)? Complete with rock vaporizing laser and 3D stereo cams!
Seriously, there's gonna be a lot of fingernail biting about 6 months after the (hopefully successful) liftoff on Nov. 25. If you want to see how how crazy the whole landing scheme is try googling the video for "Curiosity". Not being an engineer I'm not qualified to comment on how good an approach this is but it sure looks scary. Forget airbags or soft landers, instead think maybe Tarzan or special forces insertion (a la killing Osama Bin Laden).
Anyway, if you're in Southern California then, call in sick and head over to Pasadena. They usually have a live feed at the convention center for things like this.
A long long time ago in a (MacWorld) Convention far far away, I visited this booth by a little company called "FutureWave software".
They had this product that I had been thinking about: rather than sending bulky (and coarse) bitmaps over our state-of-the-art 56K modems, why not just send vector graphics? It was like the difference between Illustrator and Photoshop. Maybe you could even use vector graphics to do animation that wouldn't tie up huge amounts of bandwidth on this thing called the "Internet".
Anyway, since my imagination far far outstripped my coding ability, I had no chance to do this on my own (and I was, and still am, lazy as shit. To the do'ers in the world go the rewards I guess). Still I knew a winner when I saw one. I promptly signed up for a pre-release copy of software (as I did for CoSA After Effects and Electric Image). I think I got a single digit serial number.
Of course, what I REALLY should've had done was to ask if they needed some investors. Even though I didn't have a lot of money, maybe they would've taken pity on me and given me a few token shares (or offered me a job like CoSA did wrangling Macs). Then, when they got bought by Adobe I would have been rich(er)! Ah well, the young are stupid. (I finally started thinking of innovative software companies as potential investment targets when I came across Silicon Color.)
I guess nowadays whenever someone comes up with potentially game-changing ideas, news gets out fast and the Vulture Capitalists (just kidding a little) jump on it quickly. Note Gruopon's $12B valuation. Life was simpler and more innocent back then.
I can say that on Slashdot can't I? I mean I may (will?) be modded down because of my content but swearing isn't automatically penalized right?
Anyway, years ago my brother gave me Michael Chrichton's anti-global warming book to show me what HE (and my brother) thought about global warming. I didn't get into a big argument because I (unfortunately) knew that the effects would be visible in our lifetime. And if I was wrong, I'd be more than happy to buy a new SUX 6000 with 9mpg (except that would mean I'm buying oil from countries that finance terrorism and hate our guts; but that's another story).
So now it appears as if we really are headed to disaster; if global warming was a myth then how come the projections keep getting WORSE not better? If it was all a short term blip or fabrication we should be seeing things going back to normal shouldn't we?
Of course not, because man-made global warming is real. So i expect the Republicans amongst us will change:
Global Warming isn't real - TO - Man Made Global Warming isn't real. -THEN - There isn't anything we can do about it anyway
which will go along with:
Evolution is just a theory (against 95% of biologists) - AND - The constitution really doesnt state the separation of Church and Govt. (against 99% of historians) - TO - Stimulus spending doesn't boost the GDP (against 85% of economists.)*
When did the Republican party become the party of ignorance? Why do people like Rupert Murdoch keep at it even when someone like Steve Jobs (I know, I know) warns him to be mindful of his legacy? I mean when future generations look back upon what this group of people did to our country and planet, you've got to wonder what they're going to write in the history books. Do they not care?
So yes, we are so fucked
*By the way, do Republicans believe that vaccines cause autism?
One way to make it better would be to use eye trackers. Then the image from each projector would mask out a small area around each users eyes. if you're going to have an installation using hundreds if not thousands of projectors, the expense of tracking the eyes in 3D space and calculating the appropriate mask for each projector shouldn't be too great. If you don't have the precision and time responsiveness necessary, just mask out the entire face using commercially available face recognition algorithms.
This should allow a much nicer experience as "glare" would be drastically cut down. (You're still going to get scattering from the light but at least it won't get you directly in the eyes). Maybe this would allow you to boost the brightness which might let you reduce the number of projectors (but obviously the more projectors the better).
Anyway I'm wondering what kind of smoke/gas might be used that wouldn't harm the users. If possible, a non-toxic smoke/gas that "glowed" upon being illuminated (like the paints used under UV light) would be best. Ideally you should find one with a non-linear response (it shouldn't glow at all unless the combined illumination from several intersecting beams turned it "on").
If no such smoke/gas could be found, how about other transparent but liquid or solid mediums? This would prevent the user from "entering" the volume (unless they wore a dive suit!) but still might make a useful 3D display. (Keep the eye tracking masks to avoid zapping the users watching from the periphery). Again, what would really make it great would be if the medium had a non-linear response to the projectors; any photo-chemists out there?
Needed: optically transparent medium which "glows" (quickly and reversibly) non-linearly in response to relatively (we're not talking high powered lasers) low light levels. Preferably non-toxic and cheap.
I'm all for Hubble and am very happy they did the "risky" last servicing mission but I was just wondering, could this be done from the ground?
With ground based scopes around 10m in diameter the light capacity (except on a cloudy day!) would far surpass the Hubble. Do the "artificial" star techniques not work well enough!? Or maybe the dwell time is too long? Or maybe these images are in a part of the spectrum that doesn't go through the atmosphere?
My hat is off to this guy! (All I've done with Osiris-X is look at pretty pictures).
I was kinda hoping that this meant the printer would make the actual replacement part but I guess that's a problem of what kinds of material the printer can use and not of his ingenuity. Unfortunately it'll probably be a while until a human bone replacement can be printed out on a hobbyist printer.
Still great! Nothing beats an actual 3D physical model for per-visualization.
I mean it's like a reverse space probe (goes down instead of up) but it makes a "soft" landing and then "liftoff" to return to orbit (I mean the recovery ship). Because (I think) it's not tethered it's completely autonomous which makes it like a Mars probe in the sense that all landing decisions must be done without human intervention (because in the case of the Mars probe, the 10 min. delay makes real time control impossible).
It's really too bad that there are no (?) feasible ways of communicating with it short of a fiber-optic cable. At a minimum 6 miles run length, I suppose this would greatly add to the complexity and cost of the mission. But maybe I'm wrong about this, what "high" bandwidth wireless solutions are there for transmitting underwater? I've seen SCUBA divers communicating with full face masks, do they use some sort of hydro-sonic transceiver? Would this work over a distance of miles? Unlike military applications, there's no need for stealth so maybe there are some overlooked solutions.
Will earth observatories make space tel. obsolete?
on
Ask The Bad Astronomer
·
· Score: 1
Will the proposed next generation of ground based "super" telescopes like the "OWL" make space telescopes obsolete (in the visible spectrum anyway)? With advances like ultra-accurate laser frequency combs will they be able to do spectroscopic analysis on earth candidates? Does this mean the Terrestrial Planet Finder is not needed?
Not quite astronomy but just wondering if you think the human race will achieve some sort of "Singularity" brought about by A.I. and/or nano-technology? Within this century?
Do you think it has any bearing on the Fermi "Paradox"?
Do you support finishing the JWST which is now substantially behind schedule and over budget? (I realize that many of the problems were caused by Congress but unfortunately that's where we are today). What about if a substantial amount of the money needed to complete it is taken out of other astronomy related programs?:(
Having read today that some astronomers claim to have resolved the discrepancy between the giant nebula surrounding the oldest observed supernova (by Chinese astronomers) is there any chance that that supernova could've been responsible for the star of Bethlehem? I realize that the Chinese records say 185 A.D. but could they be off (I guess the date of Christ's birth also could be recorded/calculated incorrectly but I assume you are not a Bible Scholar).
I'm reminded of the Arthur C. Clarke story "The Star" in which a priest's faith is sorely challenged when he discovers that a peaceful advanced civilization was sacrificed to provide the light for the birth of Christ:
"[O]h God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem?"
If not this supernova, are there any other candidates that might have fit this time frame? Even if there are no reputable astronomical records, can we look at supernova remnants to see if there are any that match? Or perhaps it was due to A) Venus B) a comet C) weather balloon?
Slashdot Mirror
While this thing might be very good for evading a country's terminal defenses (like Patriot missile batteries), there isn't any indication whatsoever that this weapon would be any more stealthy; it still uses staged launch vehicles.
A country doesn't know it is being attacked when warheads start appearing in the skies above it, it (or at least the great powers) know it is being attacked when it sees the missiles coming out of their silos (or out of the ocean from subs). Then in the 5-30 minutes it's got, it decides whether it is a false alarm. I guess if tensions are really bad and it is SURE that this is an actual attack, it will "launch on warning" that is launch before the attacking missiles start exploding. Otherwise it'll just ride things out (that's why ground missiles are in hardened silos, bombers are aloft in time of crisis and subs are at sea) and wait to see what the "fallout" is (groan) before counter-attacking.
What does this hypersonic warhead do to a great power other than (as I said) possibly evading terminal defenses? Nothing except get to the target slower than a ballistic missile. The launch had already been detected by infra-red sensors in orbiting satellites and the coarse trajectory already tracked by long-range radar (remember NORAD?). Since no country has a good ABM system (even the U.S. only has one capable of knocking down a few primitive missiles from rogue nations), a hypervelocity MANEUVERABLE warhead would provide no additional benefit. It would get there slower, cost more and carry less.
For possible REAL applications think of it as a conventional weapons system of uncommon speed. (You can look at my post about marrying it with MOPs).
Didn't know that the Titan was a quick launch vehicle but I guess it had to be (it was in silos). I wonder what its purpose was for, it was a (comparatively) heavy lift rocket, was it to loft really large warheads? (I guess I can google this).
I think it was the launch vehicle Cochran used in Star Trek: First Contact was it not? I don't think the Gemini astronauts were launched out of a silo though.
So does this support or refute the contention that reality is made up of a very very large number of universes constantly being created at each quantum step? Isn't that what the Copenhagen interpretation implied?
Here's a repost of my post I submitted yesterday (don't know why they rejected it, probably thought I was too hair brained).
Anyway, here are some applications for a lighter than air substance!
wisebabo writes
"Wow, so here's something that beats even aerogel (which I understand is 99.9% empty space; this new material made from metal, is 99.99% empty space!)!
Anyway, in typical slashdot.fashion, knowing nothing about its mechanical properties (other than the article says it could be a good insulator or sound absorber) not to mention knowing nothing about how it is made or what it costs, let me propose two applications:
1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!
2) Find a way to make this from its raw materials in a vacuum and in zero-g (hopefully it won't require a large amount of super-critical fluids like liquid CO2 that aerogels do). Launch a not-too-heavy manufacturing plant into LEO and make a (VERY) big cube or sphere of this stuff. Voila! Just like aerogels, you'll have a material that'll be perfect for capturing or at least slowing down all the hypervelocity space junk just like the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes did. This'll be perfect for getting all the tiny particles and "flakes" that are too small to chase down, zap with a laser or perhaps even track via telescope or radar. Because it's very light, it'll be economical to launch something very big. (Best to attach an ion engine or some low thrust, high efficiency engine to change/maintain orbit).
2b) Oh well, as long as we're dreaming; if you can make this in space, it'd be perfect for making heat shields that weigh almost nothing (and are very very compact to launch because you're just launching the raw materials right?). Could be useful for any probe that's heading to any planet with an atmosphere or reentry to earth. Good for BIG solar shields (a la the movie "Sunshine") also.
2c) Okay, last one, I promise. If it deforms in a predictable manner, how about using it as an "airbag" replacement? After the (huge) heat shield has done it's work, the space probe could be cushioned upon impact with something stronger than an airbag without being prohibitively heavy. (Won't have to use that crazy "sky crane" like they're going to try with the MSL).
Anyway, here's to totally uninformed speculation!"
I guess the editors didn't appreciate my flights of fancy!
wisebabo writes
"Wow, so here's something that beats even aerogel (which I understand is 99.9% empty space; this new material made from metal, is 99.99% empty space!)!
Anyway, in typical slashdot.fashion, knowing nothing about its mechanical properties (other than the article says it could be a good insulator or sound absorber) not to mention knowing nothing about how it is made or what it costs, let me propose two applications:
1) take a large slab and wrap it in an airtight non-gas permeable membrane. Pump out the air. Voila! You now have a lighter than air structure that doesn't use expensive helium or flammable hydrogen. Let the new age of dirigibles (and floating in mid-air furniture) begin!
2) Find a way to make this from its raw materials in a vacuum and in zero-g (hopefully it won't require a large amount of super-critical fluids like liquid CO2 that aerogels do). Launch a not-too-heavy manufacturing plant into LEO and make a (VERY) big cube or sphere of this stuff. Voila! Just like aerogels, you'll have a material that'll be perfect for capturing or at least slowing down all the hypervelocity space junk just like the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes did. This'll be perfect for getting all the tiny particles and "flakes" that are too small to chase down, zap with a laser or perhaps even track via telescope or radar. Because it's very light, it'll be economical to launch something very big. (Best to attach an ion engine or some low thrust, high efficiency engine to change/maintain orbit).
2b) Oh well, as long as we're dreaming; if you can make this in space, it'd be perfect for making heat shields that weigh almost nothing (and are very very compact to launch because you're just launching the raw materials right?). Could be useful for any probe that's heading to any planet with an atmosphere or reentry to earth. Good for BIG solar shields (a la the movie "Sunshine") also.
2c) Okay, last one, I promise. If it deforms in a predictable manner, how about using it as an "airbag" replacement? After the (huge) heat shield has done it's work, the space probe could be cushioned upon impact with something stronger than an airbag without being prohibitively heavy. (Won't have to use that crazy "sky crane" like they're going to try with the MSL).
Anyway, here's to totally uninformed speculation!"
Oh, I forgot. This, by the way reminds me of what the Nazi's tried to do with the Sanger(?) "skip bomber" which when launched by a sub-orbital V-2 would send a manned (one pilot) space-craft skipping across the upper atmosphere to bomb targets on the other side of the planet.
Of course since they didn't have guidance technology good enough, it had to be manned, and because thy didn't have big enough boosters it had to be sub-orbital, and because they didn't have THE BOMB it was hardly worth it just to drop a few tons of explosive. But hey, if they had these things they could've won!
So, if the booster is big enough, can they use this thing with a MOP as a payload?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1445237/boeing-delivers-massive-ordnance-penetrator
A big 30,000 warhead designed to blow up things DEEP underground might even do a better job if delivered at hypersonic speeds, think "rods from god". (It'll have to be redisgned to take the much higher impact speed but that's what engineers are for!) The fact that it is delivered on a (much) more expensive booster is mitigated by the fact that you don't need to use a B-2 to deliver it. This gives you two advantages: 1) the (admittedly low) risk of human crew loss (and loss of a $2B bomber) goes to zero and 2) you can now attack IN DAYLIGHT (B-2s lose their stealth advantage because they are not invisible to visible light, just radar and have low infrared profiles. So I figure any Iranian fighter pilot could easily shoot down the subsonic aircraft during the day).
Paradoxically they may NOT be as good a first strike weapon as a B-2 bomber against a great power because presumably Russia (and China?) can detect missile launches anywhere in the world more easily than a stealthy B-2. Against some country like Iran or North Korea however, they give the commander in Chief the ability to hit a target very quickly, with almost zero chance of interception, with the power of redirection (or abort) and during daylight (which would be very useful if you want to KILL all THE high value PEOPLE working there). Combined with a MOP you can go after even the deep ultra-high value targets although in order to do so you'd probably need to develop a new heavily solid fuel launcher (the old minuteman and MX don't have the throw weight and liquid fueled rockets aren't exactly things you can launch on a moment's notice).
Here are my comments that I attached to this post while it was in slashdot/recent. I guess the editors didn't take much heed.
RTFA
Ok, I know that the LA times is not what I would call the paragon of great journalism but still you should closely RTFA. (Compare the writing in this, where the writer just seems to go on and on reciting facts without concise summarization and a coherent narrative to that of a well written NYTimes piece).
First the fact that these guys "are long time political donors" and "65% of their donations went to the Democratic party in 2008 and 2010" do not automatically make them "longtime Democratic donors". I'm not saying they aren't but don't jump to conclusions (Isn't it possible that these guys, seeing the way the political winds were shifting sent more of their money to the Democrats those years? Also if they gave only 65% to anyone that implies they weren't hardcore supporters, they didn't give 100% did they?).
Second; according to TFA most of the company's actions took place under the Bush administration. The company was formed after Bush made anti-bio weapons preparedness a priority and the Bush administration were the ones who gave the company its grants (did they receive even a dime under the Obama administration?).
Third; again according to TFA, the reason for the "sole source" agreement is because of a regulation otherwise requiring them to be a small business (they aren't, they have more than 500 people). So, according to TFA, that was the reason they had to do this and not because the Bush?/Obama? administration unduly applied pressure.
I could go on and say how, in TFA, some epidemiologists think it's a waste of money and how other, equally credentialed ones say it isn't. Still, please note that it DOES have a use beyond the original vaccine. If you get sick and don't get the original vaccine within four days, this will save you. Otherwise you die. Is that a waste of money? Reasonable people may disagree. (Smallpox the physical virus MAY* be present in only two locations but I believe its DNA sequence was published on the Internet).
Look, maybe the poorly written LA times article caused these mistakes in the summary. But that's what you get when you choose poor journalism. You should be prepared to put in the time and effort to get what is (hopefully) the true story behind the ill-presented facts.
*you could probably retrieve some from someone buried in the arctic prior to say 1950. That's how they retrieved the black plague recently.
If it's a fractal antenna then perhaps this allows the antenna to be much shorter than its wavelength and still radiate enough power to do something useful.
So what use would a extremely long wavelength radio transmitter/receiver be used for? Since it's in a military zone I'd guess it's so communicate with their growing fleet of nuclear subs (I don't know if they have ballistic missile subs but even attack subs need command and control). This is because these wavelengths penetrate water (and the amount of data that needs to be sent can be very small like "use attack plan F").
Of course if it was a scientific project I could imagine astronomers would be very interested in being able to look at this previously unexamined part of the spectrum (there was an Arthur C. Clarke story about a gigantic space based observatory that discovered incredibly huge space life forms through their use of this part of the spectrum). Or perhaps ultra-long wavelengths penetrate the ground for geological surveys?
I (tried to) learn a lot from these postings (some of it was at the limit of my understanding though). I appreciate the information!
Is there any benefit to moving to ultrasonic frequencies? Other than making it inaudible (so you don't bother people but maybe dogs!), would this improve the resolution? Does the range decrease? Do consumer level devices cover such a broad spectrum?
By the way, has anyone made an iOS or Android App that can record in the ultrasound (or infrasonic) ranges and change it so that we can listen in audible ranges? Might be neat to see/hear what the bats are doing!
Also, how DO bats build up a good 3D map of their surroundings using just one "speaker" and two "microphones"? Do they send out beams or are their ears swiveling? And, with the limited amount of computing power on a smartphone, would it be able to duplicate it? A bat's brain doesn't seem particularly large and they are doing this FAST (on the fly, ha ha).
Well research in this vein (ha ha) should continue if for no other reason than it would be great to be able to have a big juicy steak on a space ship! Of course one could see all sorts of interesting (bad) things happening due to the combination of zero-g, cosmic rays and endlessly multiplying cells!
Does anyone know if there are any experiments in trying to make fish meat (sushi) along these lines? Pound for pound (or ounce for ounce) perfectly made uniform slabs of high grade fish have got to be the most expensive/valuable bits of non-human protein on the planet. I mean when a single (big) tuna costs several hundred thousand dollars in the Tokyo fish market, you know there could be profit for even an expensive technology.
Finally, (I know this is gross), would eating synthesized human flesh be considered cannibalism? I mean is cannibalism bad because you had to kill someone to eat or is it bad because you are eating meat with similar DNA? (Actually, it's probably the latter because it exposes you to all sorts of diseases that normally wouldn't survive because you'd be eating a different species). And would it taste like chicken?
... our turn is next with the very expensive (most expensive since Viking?) extremely ambitious (nuclear powered, "sky crane" lowered) giant (size of a mini-cooper) rover with no-backup! (no second rover)? Complete with rock vaporizing laser and 3D stereo cams!
Seriously, there's gonna be a lot of fingernail biting about 6 months after the (hopefully successful) liftoff on Nov. 25. If you want to see how how crazy the whole landing scheme is try googling the video for "Curiosity". Not being an engineer I'm not qualified to comment on how good an approach this is but it sure looks scary. Forget airbags or soft landers, instead think maybe Tarzan or special forces insertion (a la killing Osama Bin Laden).
Anyway, if you're in Southern California then, call in sick and head over to Pasadena. They usually have a live feed at the convention center for things like this.
A long long time ago in a (MacWorld) Convention far far away, I visited this booth by a little company called "FutureWave software".
They had this product that I had been thinking about: rather than sending bulky (and coarse) bitmaps over our state-of-the-art 56K modems, why not just send vector graphics? It was like the difference between Illustrator and Photoshop. Maybe you could even use vector graphics to do animation that wouldn't tie up huge amounts of bandwidth on this thing called the "Internet".
Anyway, since my imagination far far outstripped my coding ability, I had no chance to do this on my own (and I was, and still am, lazy as shit. To the do'ers in the world go the rewards I guess). Still I knew a winner when I saw one. I promptly signed up for a pre-release copy of software (as I did for CoSA After Effects and Electric Image). I think I got a single digit serial number.
Of course, what I REALLY should've had done was to ask if they needed some investors. Even though I didn't have a lot of money, maybe they would've taken pity on me and given me a few token shares (or offered me a job like CoSA did wrangling Macs). Then, when they got bought by Adobe I would have been rich(er)! Ah well, the young are stupid. (I finally started thinking of innovative software companies as potential investment targets when I came across Silicon Color.)
I guess nowadays whenever someone comes up with potentially game-changing ideas, news gets out fast and the Vulture Capitalists (just kidding a little) jump on it quickly. Note Gruopon's $12B valuation. Life was simpler and more innocent back then.
I can say that on Slashdot can't I? I mean I may (will?) be modded down because of my content but swearing isn't automatically penalized right?
Anyway, years ago my brother gave me Michael Chrichton's anti-global warming book to show me what HE (and my brother) thought about global warming. I didn't get into a big argument because I (unfortunately) knew that the effects would be visible in our lifetime. And if I was wrong, I'd be more than happy to buy a new SUX 6000 with 9mpg (except that would mean I'm buying oil from countries that finance terrorism and hate our guts; but that's another story).
So now it appears as if we really are headed to disaster; if global warming was a myth then how come the projections keep getting WORSE not better? If it was all a short term blip or fabrication we should be seeing things going back to normal shouldn't we?
Of course not, because man-made global warming is real. So i expect the Republicans amongst us will change:
Global Warming isn't real - TO - Man Made Global Warming isn't real. -THEN - There isn't anything we can do about it anyway
which will go along with:
Evolution is just a theory (against 95% of biologists) - AND - The constitution really doesnt state the separation of Church and Govt. (against 99% of historians) - TO - Stimulus spending doesn't boost the GDP (against 85% of economists.)*
When did the Republican party become the party of ignorance? Why do people like Rupert Murdoch keep at it even when someone like Steve Jobs (I know, I know) warns him to be mindful of his legacy? I mean when future generations look back upon what this group of people did to our country and planet, you've got to wonder what they're going to write in the history books. Do they not care?
So yes, we are so fucked
*By the way, do Republicans believe that vaccines cause autism?
Ok, interesting idea.
One way to make it better would be to use eye trackers. Then the image from each projector would mask out a small area around each users eyes. if you're going to have an installation using hundreds if not thousands of projectors, the expense of tracking the eyes in 3D space and calculating the appropriate mask for each projector shouldn't be too great. If you don't have the precision and time responsiveness necessary, just mask out the entire face using commercially available face recognition algorithms.
This should allow a much nicer experience as "glare" would be drastically cut down. (You're still going to get scattering from the light but at least it won't get you directly in the eyes). Maybe this would allow you to boost the brightness which might let you reduce the number of projectors (but obviously the more projectors the better).
Anyway I'm wondering what kind of smoke/gas might be used that wouldn't harm the users. If possible, a non-toxic smoke/gas that "glowed" upon being illuminated (like the paints used under UV light) would be best. Ideally you should find one with a non-linear response (it shouldn't glow at all unless the combined illumination from several intersecting beams turned it "on").
If no such smoke/gas could be found, how about other transparent but liquid or solid mediums? This would prevent the user from "entering" the volume (unless they wore a dive suit!) but still might make a useful 3D display. (Keep the eye tracking masks to avoid zapping the users watching from the periphery). Again, what would really make it great would be if the medium had a non-linear response to the projectors; any photo-chemists out there?
Needed: optically transparent medium which "glows" (quickly and reversibly) non-linearly in response to relatively (we're not talking high powered lasers) low light levels. Preferably non-toxic and cheap.
I'm all for Hubble and am very happy they did the "risky" last servicing mission but I was just wondering, could this be done from the ground?
With ground based scopes around 10m in diameter the light capacity (except on a cloudy day!) would far surpass the Hubble. Do the "artificial" star techniques not work well enough!? Or maybe the dwell time is too long? Or maybe these images are in a part of the spectrum that doesn't go through the atmosphere?
My hat is off to this guy! (All I've done with Osiris-X is look at pretty pictures).
I was kinda hoping that this meant the printer would make the actual replacement part but I guess that's a problem of what kinds of material the printer can use and not of his ingenuity. Unfortunately it'll probably be a while until a human bone replacement can be printed out on a hobbyist printer.
Still great! Nothing beats an actual 3D physical model for per-visualization.
I mean it's like a reverse space probe (goes down instead of up) but it makes a "soft" landing and then "liftoff" to return to orbit (I mean the recovery ship). Because (I think) it's not tethered it's completely autonomous which makes it like a Mars probe in the sense that all landing decisions must be done without human intervention (because in the case of the Mars probe, the 10 min. delay makes real time control impossible).
It's really too bad that there are no (?) feasible ways of communicating with it short of a fiber-optic cable. At a minimum 6 miles run length, I suppose this would greatly add to the complexity and cost of the mission. But maybe I'm wrong about this, what "high" bandwidth wireless solutions are there for transmitting underwater? I've seen SCUBA divers communicating with full face masks, do they use some sort of hydro-sonic transceiver? Would this work over a distance of miles? Unlike military applications, there's no need for stealth so maybe there are some overlooked solutions.
Who? (and if so, what do you recommend!)
Will the proposed next generation of ground based "super" telescopes like the "OWL" make space telescopes obsolete (in the visible spectrum anyway)? With advances like ultra-accurate laser frequency combs will they be able to do spectroscopic analysis on earth candidates? Does this mean the Terrestrial Planet Finder is not needed?
Not quite astronomy but just wondering if you think the human race will achieve some sort of "Singularity" brought about by A.I. and/or nano-technology? Within this century?
Do you think it has any bearing on the Fermi "Paradox"?
If you had to choose a major (Discovery?) class probe to look for life beyond earth which celestial body would you send it to?
Mars (methane outgassing?)
Europa (subsurface ocean?)
Enceladus (water "fountains"?)
Titan (liquid water, ammonium, hydrocarbon ocean?)
Are you familiar with Peter Ward's book "Life but not as we know it" in which he makes a strong case for Titan? Do you agree?
Do you support finishing the JWST which is now substantially behind schedule and over budget? (I realize that many of the problems were caused by Congress but unfortunately that's where we are today). What about if a substantial amount of the money needed to complete it is taken out of other astronomy related programs? :(
Having read today that some astronomers claim to have resolved the discrepancy between the giant nebula surrounding the oldest observed supernova (by Chinese astronomers) is there any chance that that supernova could've been responsible for the star of Bethlehem? I realize that the Chinese records say 185 A.D. but could they be off (I guess the date of Christ's birth also could be recorded/calculated incorrectly but I assume you are not a Bible Scholar).
I'm reminded of the Arthur C. Clarke story "The Star" in which a priest's faith is sorely challenged when he discovers that a peaceful advanced civilization was sacrificed to provide the light for the birth of Christ:
"[O]h God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem?"
If not this supernova, are there any other candidates that might have fit this time frame? Even if there are no reputable astronomical records, can we look at supernova remnants to see if there are any that match? Or perhaps it was due to A) Venus B) a comet C) weather balloon?