I believe in "Contact" (the book by Carl Sagan, not the movie), the travelers ask the superintelligent aliens "Do you believe in God? To which they reply: "Yes" When asked why, they say "We have proof" in the finding of a message in a transcendental number (pi?).
After reading the Wikipedia summary I understand that when the travelers come home and are accused of fabricating the whole thing, one of them tries to "find" this message by running their own computer program. She finds a message, or does she? Is it just a (very unlikely?) statistical fluke? What is noise and what is message when you are dealing with a literally infinitely long string of numbers? (Wasn't this also the plot behind one of Stanislaw Lem's books?).
I guess if he found a message the news would be all over the place by now so he didn't find a message (or maybe he's just keeping the insights to himself for stock market gains like in the movie "Pi"). Anyway, how DO you go about finding patterns in a finite (if you can call 2.7 trillion finite!) string of numbers?
I understand that WISE is particularly well suited for finding asteroids (its an infra-red telescope so can pick up warm objects and its a survey scope). If this telescope finds an asteroid with our name on it with enough time to do something about it, it will make all the money spent on the space program by all the countries of the world seem like spare change.
(I wonder if this is first post. If so, it'll be my first.).
Look, I'm a big fan of the space program and everything but with the country at (two) war(s), hocked to the hilt, economically stuttering, NASA (like the rest of the government) needs to be focused on its "core competencies" (no I'm not a PHB). Where does building data centers fit into NASA's mission statement?
I realize that there are tremendous amounts of data that needs to be captured, analyzed and archived (the Terra satellite sends a terabyte of data a day alone I think) but isn't this something that can be done more efficiently by private industry (Google?). Maybe it can be even outsourced providing it is not of a sensitive nature, I mean isn't the data for all mankind?
thanks for correcting your previous post, but not only does Microsoft have lots more cash than Google ($37.5B) but it is generated primarily through its Windows operating system/application sales.
If there is a battle over the search market and Google starts losing significant market share, its revenues are under direct threat. Microsoft's revenues are not. Basically you are cutting off Google's supply lines (to use a war analogy). So as the fight goes on Google will get weaker.
Of course, this is the long-term strategy that Google has been working on against Microsoft with (free) web based applications and now the Google Chrome operating system. But people are very reluctant to change OS's and applications whereas they are likely to quickly shift to another search engine.
... the real threat to Google is Murdoch trying to get the rest of the publishing/content world to threaten lack of access to Google unless they pay them.
And if they don't? They will allow Bing! to index their sites (after being paid a hefty fee by Microsoft).
This is actually pretty smart in a number of ways. It changes the balance of power from the search engines to the content providers. "Pay us or you won't be allowed to search our sites". Not only does it help Murdoch get his content paid for but he's running to the correct knight (in black evil armor) to rescue him, Microsoft. What's the one thing that Microsoft still has that Google can't compete with? Cash, Microsoft CAN BUY ITS WAY to the top of the search engine heap. THAT'S how Google can be killed. (I wonder if anti-trust laws will prevent Murdoch from explicitly organizing against Google).
I wish I could say I thought this on my own but I read it on TechCrunch. (No I'm not affiliated with them in any way). P.S. While we're on the subject with Murdoch, even before he gets into bed with M$, what the F*** is he, a FOREIGNER (sorry Aussies) screwing up the media in our (U.S.) country? Aren't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets? And he's so blatantly trying to force his right wing viewpoints down our throats!
Pretty amazing what a teacher can get away with and not get fired with huh?
Second here's an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/education/15teacher.html) that is less direct but still is pretty damning of the system. Here's just one abridged quote: "New York City has roughly 80,000 public school teachers...Only about 10 to 15 tenured teachers a year leave the system after being charged with incompetence."
So only about.015% of the teachers are incompetent? Don't you think that's just a wee bit unrealistic?
Or maybe you think these studies are just fabrications of the "liberal" media?
Second (maybe) only to the dysfunctional health care system in America is the terrible state of its primary and secondary school systems. We spend far more than Asian (and European? I don't know) countries on education and get results that are the embarrassment of the world.
Why? One reason is undoubtedly America's anti-intellectual climate (rock stars not rocket scientists get laid). This is something that may only change after China demonstrates in a big way how they might dominate the 21 century (like Sputnik). The other reason is the TEACHER'S UNIONS. The stranglehold they have against reform and removing incompetent teachers is legendary, I won't even bother going into how hard it is to fire a teacher in most places. The importance of good teachers towards improving scores is well documented; a recent studied said if the top 25% of teachers were working in the worst schools the racial test score gap would vanish.
Once upon a time, the unions performed a useful function by preventing arbitrary firings of teachers on a principal's whim. Now the pendulum has swung far far the other away; the unions, the political power they represent and the money they spend are the single largest factor denying a good education to America's kids. If America wants to have a fighting chance of not giving up its leadership role in the world this is a problem that MUST be solved.
Didn't know that about Aerogels. How about wrapping the whole thing in a (very) thin layer of "saran" wrap? (to non-Americans that's transparent plastic wrap). It'll keep the whole thing from fragmenting without (hopefully) adding too much to the weight.
Also, I'm hoping that little pieces of the Aerogel will be relatively "harmless" upon impact (is anything harmless at 25,000 mph)? Perhaps the "wrap" could be made non-transparent to something like UV while the Aerogel could be tailored to disintegrate upon prolonged exposure to UV. That way, any little fragments out of the "bag" will break up and be blown away on the solar wind.
I think the idea would be to put this Aerogel barge in a pretty high orbit. Anything in low orbit would naturally come down in a reasonably short time because of atmospheric drag.
IF (and I know it is a big IF) it were possible to "manufacture" aerogels in space, this material could be ideal for capturing/de-orbiting small pieces of debris that would be too difficult/expensive to chase and capture the traditional way (via space tug or whatnot) but still poses a threat. Aerogels have already proven themselves as capable of capturing extremely fast (although tiny) particles moving at literally astronomical speeds without itself disintegrating. It was used precisely for this reason in both the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes.
Now imagine instead of the small plates that were on these probes a very large slab tens or hundreds (thousands?) of meters on a side that would, over time, slowly intercept the smaller particles. Larger fragments would still go right through but might lose enough kinetic energy (without fragmenting and making the problem worse) so as to de-orbit themselves. The only thing that might make this remotely possible is the thought that the aerogel is so light (lighter than air) that a really huge piece could be put into orbit without spending billions in launch something heavy. Of course the only way to keep the launch volume reasonable is to MAKE it in space. Once in space, an ion engine would be required to counteract the atmospheric drag (and loss of kinetic energy from the impacts of the space debris).
By "manufacture" I mean the raw material (I guess it some sort of silicate compound) would have to be brought up from earth but since the resulting aerogel is 99.9% empty space, a little could go a long way. I understand that one way to produce it requires a super-critical liquid carbon-dioxide solution; obviously the CO2 would have to be recycled or better yet would be if a means of producing it directly in vacuum. Chemists, any ideas?
(using the American notation of 1 Trillion = 1,000 Billion). Anyway, they are putting the cart before the horse so to speak. They should really put their effort behind:
1) making long carbon nano-tubes on an industrial scale to build a space elevator. I read somewhere that with such "unobtanium" it would (only) cost 5 Billion to build an initial elevator from which supposedly they could expand.
2) support deep space exploration with the goal of eventually mining asteroids. To build a really decent sized elevator you'll need a LOT of material (megatons). Why bother lifting it out of the gravity well if you could just take a passing NEO and nudge it into geo-sync? Good practice for asteroid deflection also.
I doubt I'll see this before I die (I'm in my mid-40s) but this would truly, completely change the economics of spaceflight. As well as making space based solar power arrays even remotely economical. Who knows, maybe the language of the solar system won't be english or chinese but japanese? (A really really hard language to learn).
Congratulations to LaserMotive and I hope that they (or one of the other participants) quickly claim the remaining prizes.
Still, it occurred to me that the real system (capable of climbing to Geo-sync and beyond) won't be designed in a vacuum (ha ha). I mean, the cable on which these climbers ascend will be exquisitely engineered as well, probably down to the nano-level if it's going to work at all. So shouldn't the contest be that of a cable/climber combination? I mean like what if the cable or climber or both was using some nano patterned material like the underside of a gecko's foot (which lets them cling upside down to ceilings). Or maybe if there was some sort of nano (or not, I saw one made out of large metal bits) "velcro" like material in which case there would have to be hooks on one surface and clasps on another.
As long as the surface of the cable didn't add appreciably to the weight of the (supposed) carbon nanotube structure, it could add tremendously to the gripping power of the climber while still allowing for a practical cable.
I'm not a serious developer and certainly not one that works on mission critical systems but I have a question:
Are there any symbolic math libraries that allow a program to compute and store its interim values symbolically until the final result was needed? (Like, as an AC mentioned earlier, Mathematica?). Of course there would be an memory overhead (but surely the entire Mathematica kernel wouldn't be needed) and performance might be much MUCH slower than current "binary math" libraries but surely in a day of gigabyte RAM chips and gigaflop CPUs (and Terflop GPUs) the added precision would be worth it?
So does anything like this exist? Would it be hard to develop (that's a challenge for you out there!)
I actually read about this specific incidence once; I seem to remember (though honestly not sure) that the design flaw was known and the user manual indicated that the computer needed to be reset every 36 hours. However, in wartime, under attack (there were frequent Scud intercepts), the crew controlling the missile battery opted against shutting it down if even for short time. Maybe even though the manual said it SHOULD be rebooted it did not explain WHY or what the consequences would be.
When I saw the sentence starting "The possibilities..." I mentally filled it in with "are endless".
I was surprised (and a little gratified) to see the summary actually enumerating some of the possibilities instead of hyping it as is normally done. That's good!
Just wanted to mention, it doesn't look like an "engine" (something that produces thrust as opposed to power). In the photo, there is just a collection of tubes where the very large nozzle (nozzles for use in space as opposed to the atmosphere are larger due to the greater expansion of the exhaust gasses) should be. Also there is no massive turbo-pump, fuel feed system needed even on a regeneratively cooled engine (and nozzle).
The fact that the head of the Russian space agency talks about "the development of Megawatt-class nuclear space *power* systems (MCNSPS) for manned spacecraft was crucial for Russia" (my asterisks) further implies that they are in fact designing power systems (for electric propulsion like ion drives) rather than thermal nuclear engines. I have never heard of any Russian program matching the NASA NERVA program, so I would be quite surprised if this was an announcement of them continuing such an effort.
Anyone know if there is enough thrust to counteract the drag the ISS has in the extremely thin atmosphere up there?
Does the running of the ion engine cause adverse effect to any of the delicate instrumentation on board? Does it mess up any electric/magnetic measurements?
Is the power draw too great for it to be used in this fashion?
(TFA says "there are plans" to use it in this fashion but nothing beyond that).
*application of Niven's law: is there any way to make it into a beamed energy weapon against "soft targets" like other satellites in LEO?
Even though I summarized one of the conclusions of the Augustine report I'm sorry to say that I haven't read it through myself. However I think that the approach of going further into deep space and only "landing" (perhaps docking would be a better turn) on minor bodies might be cheaper than you think.
Think of it, no need to develop:
1) a costly lander capable of re-entry on bodies if they have a significant atmosphere, ability to slow via parachute/retro-rockets and have a controlled landing (the mars rover bouncing balloon doesn't scale well to manned vehicles!). This thing will be BIG, we're not talking about a short stay of two guys for a few days; instead how about a crew of four staying for months. Of course the flight control/landing system has to be just about flawless.
2) some sort of habitat capable of keeping out the extra-terrestrial elements like wind, dust storms which may be corrosive (martian soil I understand is pretty nasty), precipitation (frost or carbon dioxide ice buildup), soil movement due to melting of "permafrost" etc. etc. Don't forget that instead of deep space there is that little thing called the day/night cycle which can really make thermal control and solar power generation a real pain. Then there is the fact that space suits need to be designed to handle all this stuff as well as any motorized vehicle. It probably needs to deal with a partial gee environment unlike the zero-gee/micro-gee environment our current space station/space suits already handle (so no astronauts pushing around multi-ton structures with their fingertips). Also, space suits are heavy!
3) now you've got to get the astronauts back UP the gravity well. You have to have a high specific impulse engine that has to be absolutely reliable with real-time flight control systems (otherwise you'll crash) instead of very gently drifting back to the comet/asteroid. So out goes the super-efficient ion/VASIMIR engines (like the 200KW version to be tested on the ISS next year). Instead you'll need to use a chemical engine that can survive the transport and landing (as well as sitting around for YEARS). Of course the engine as well as the ascent vehicle needs to be designed (and one hopes tested) for the aerodynamic forces on liftoff and docking with the orbiter which will take them home. (The orbiter which may have been sitting up there unattended for a long time will have to be completely autonomous; no repeat of the Apollo program with one guy left in orbit).
So basically, by just going into deep space WITHOUT landing in significant bodies, you are cutting out a HUGE portion of the costs. If the ISS was made a little stronger and had radiation shield (magnetic shielding perhaps? or just a "storm shelter"), you could almost just attach an ion drive (and a nuclear power plant) and it could go anywhere in the solar system! Think of it in terms of airplanes, the two most dangerous times are: landing and taking off. Maybe we shouldn't bother.
The Augustine commission reporting to President Obama recommended that we skip LANDING on the Moon and Mars and instead consider progressively deeper space voyages (first to L1 earth moon point, then perhaps L2 earth sun point, then Mars flyby/orbit or asteroid visits). For example astronauts in Mars orbit could send robotic probes to land on Mars which could be much more effective without the 10 minute time lag to earth. (Can you say telepresence?). Visiting comets and asteroids would be a major goal not just for scientific knowledge (and the knowledge as to how to eventually prevent them from hitting us) but ultimately in-situ resource exploitation.
They feel that this approach would lead to "the most steady cadence of steady improvement." and keep us from inconsistent achievements in space (like not leaving earth orbit for 40 years!). Some would say that this approach would be lacking in the photo-ops necessary to maintain interest in the space program (no footprints on Martian soil) but I think there would be plenty of cool vistas (rendezvous with a comet or even orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter assuming they figure out radiation shielding) to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing. The science return would be much greater because it would hopefully utilize both man and machine at their best (robots on one way trips down a gravity well while the humans provide the intuition and flexibility from orbit). If you can figure out radiation shielding and bone loss from zero-g, we could go just about anywhere in the solar system (with a good ion drive and nuclear power plant). Now with the presence of water confirmed on at least (some) of these smaller bodies, they could stay there for long periods of time.
The article says that the comet had an orbit around Jupiter of 12 years. Well Jupiter has an orbital period around the sun of almost exactly 12 years also. Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
I believe that there is a NEO that basically does the same thing around earth. It travels in an orbit around the sun just slightly different from the earth so that sometimes it is in front of the earth on it's path and sometimes it is behind. From our perspective it makes a complex lissajous (spelling?) track. But I seem to remember it is definitely NOT "orbiting" the earth.
The article doesn't specifically state whether or not the comet is gravitationally bound to Jupiter which I guess is the definition of "orbiting" (I'm not a professional astronomer). Even if it was orbiting Jupiter, with a period of 12 years it was very loosely bound. In any case, how was it brought into Jupiter's proximity? How did it get ejected? Where is it now?
So it seems this would be a great excuse to put a reasonably high powered laser in space.
It could communicate with submarines over a vast area (I don't mean by illuminating the entire area at once, instead it would target many different pinpoint locations only one of which has the submarine it wants to communicate with).
The enemy wouldn't even be able to follow the track of aircraft that would otherwise be communicating with the submarines.
Instant, high bandwidth communications down to submarines worldwide would solve some real operational problems. (Like in the movie "Crimson Tide"). Unfortunately most schemes to communicate back give away the submarine's position. Perhaps they could modulate the neutrino flux from the nuclear reactors on board?
Yeah, I ran some "back of the envelope" calculations but for all I know, they're about as good as ones that could come out of a back orifice! (I'm not an astrophysicist).
Seriously though, it really depends on how small you can grind up the asteroid. Of course, if they're that small the solar wind will blow them away rather quickly (like a comet's tail).
The best corridors were from the movie 2001. In it we have:
- The long corridor connecting the crew module from the propulsion system on the Discovery. Note it was octagonal in section and had no up or down as it was only to be accessed in zero-g. - The short corridor/connector in the shuttle to the moon where the mod space stewardess walks in and, thanks to the tricks of a rotating set and fixed camera, travels up the wall onto the "ceiling" and exits. (She is supposedly held on by her velcro shoes). - The short connector on the Discovery which is where the non-rotating main part of the space-craft meets the rotating part of the crew module. The astronauts must float down it and then clamber down a spinning opening to the part of the spacecraft that has artificial gravity. This is also another great "corridor", here Stanley Kubrik built basically an enclosed ferris wheel and in some memorable shots, had his astronauts jogging all around the "wheel".
Amazing what you can do with a script that isn't pseudo science and a director who cares (and has a good budget!).
Slashdot Mirror
I believe in "Contact" (the book by Carl Sagan, not the movie), the travelers ask the superintelligent aliens "Do you believe in God? To which they reply: "Yes" When asked why, they say "We have proof" in the finding of a message in a transcendental number (pi?).
After reading the Wikipedia summary I understand that when the travelers come home and are accused of fabricating the whole thing, one of them tries to "find" this message by running their own computer program. She finds a message, or does she? Is it just a (very unlikely?) statistical fluke? What is noise and what is message when you are dealing with a literally infinitely long string of numbers? (Wasn't this also the plot behind one of Stanislaw Lem's books?).
I guess if he found a message the news would be all over the place by now so he didn't find a message (or maybe he's just keeping the insights to himself for stock market gains like in the movie "Pi"). Anyway, how DO you go about finding patterns in a finite (if you can call 2.7 trillion finite!) string of numbers?
I understand that WISE is particularly well suited for finding asteroids (its an infra-red telescope so can pick up warm objects and its a survey scope). If this telescope finds an asteroid with our name on it with enough time to do something about it, it will make all the money spent on the space program by all the countries of the world seem like spare change.
(I wonder if this is first post. If so, it'll be my first.).
Look, I'm a big fan of the space program and everything but with the country at (two) war(s), hocked to the hilt, economically stuttering, NASA (like the rest of the government) needs to be focused on its "core competencies" (no I'm not a PHB). Where does building data centers fit into NASA's mission statement?
I realize that there are tremendous amounts of data that needs to be captured, analyzed and archived (the Terra satellite sends a terabyte of data a day alone I think) but isn't this something that can be done more efficiently by private industry (Google?). Maybe it can be even outsourced providing it is not of a sensitive nature, I mean isn't the data for all mankind?
thank you, I didn't know that I always thought he was (just) an Australian (sorry Aussies!).
thanks for correcting your previous post, but not only does Microsoft have lots more cash than Google ($37.5B) but it is generated primarily through its Windows operating system/application sales.
If there is a battle over the search market and Google starts losing significant market share, its revenues are under direct threat. Microsoft's revenues are not. Basically you are cutting off Google's supply lines (to use a war analogy). So as the fight goes on Google will get weaker.
Of course, this is the long-term strategy that Google has been working on against Microsoft with (free) web based applications and now the Google Chrome operating system. But people are very reluctant to change OS's and applications whereas they are likely to quickly shift to another search engine.
... the real threat to Google is Murdoch trying to get the rest of the publishing/content world to threaten lack of access to Google unless they pay them.
And if they don't? They will allow Bing! to index their sites (after being paid a hefty fee by Microsoft).
This is actually pretty smart in a number of ways. It changes the balance of power from the search engines to the content providers. "Pay us or you won't be allowed to search our sites". Not only does it help Murdoch get his content paid for but he's running to the correct knight (in black evil armor) to rescue him, Microsoft. What's the one thing that Microsoft still has that Google can't compete with? Cash, Microsoft CAN BUY ITS WAY to the top of the search engine heap. THAT'S how Google can be killed. (I wonder if anti-trust laws will prevent Murdoch from explicitly organizing against Google).
I wish I could say I thought this on my own but I read it on TechCrunch. (No I'm not affiliated with them in any way). P.S. While we're on the subject with Murdoch, even before he gets into bed with M$, what the F*** is he, a FOREIGNER (sorry Aussies) screwing up the media in our (U.S.) country? Aren't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets? And he's so blatantly trying to force his right wing viewpoints down our throats!
I guess I'll have to spell this out for you. First, here's an article from the L.A. Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,679507.story
Pretty amazing what a teacher can get away with and not get fired with huh?
Second here's an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/education/15teacher.html) that is less direct but still is pretty damning of the system. Here's just one abridged quote: "New York City has roughly 80,000 public school teachers...Only about 10 to 15 tenured teachers a year leave the system after being charged with incompetence."
So only about .015% of the teachers are incompetent? Don't you think that's just a wee bit unrealistic?
Or maybe you think these studies are just fabrications of the "liberal" media?
Second (maybe) only to the dysfunctional health care system in America is the terrible state of its primary and secondary school systems. We spend far more than Asian (and European? I don't know) countries on education and get results that are the embarrassment of the world.
Why? One reason is undoubtedly America's anti-intellectual climate (rock stars not rocket scientists get laid). This is something that may only change after China demonstrates in a big way how they might dominate the 21 century (like Sputnik). The other reason is the TEACHER'S UNIONS. The stranglehold they have against reform and removing incompetent teachers is legendary, I won't even bother going into how hard it is to fire a teacher in most places. The importance of good teachers towards improving scores is well documented; a recent studied said if the top 25% of teachers were working in the worst schools the racial test score gap would vanish.
Once upon a time, the unions performed a useful function by preventing arbitrary firings of teachers on a principal's whim. Now the pendulum has swung far far the other away; the unions, the political power they represent and the money they spend are the single largest factor denying a good education to America's kids. If America wants to have a fighting chance of not giving up its leadership role in the world this is a problem that MUST be solved.
Didn't know that about Aerogels. How about wrapping the whole thing in a (very) thin layer of "saran" wrap? (to non-Americans that's transparent plastic wrap). It'll keep the whole thing from fragmenting without (hopefully) adding too much to the weight.
Also, I'm hoping that little pieces of the Aerogel will be relatively "harmless" upon impact (is anything harmless at 25,000 mph)? Perhaps the "wrap" could be made non-transparent to something like UV while the Aerogel could be tailored to disintegrate upon prolonged exposure to UV. That way, any little fragments out of the "bag" will break up and be blown away on the solar wind.
I think the idea would be to put this Aerogel barge in a pretty high orbit. Anything in low orbit would naturally come down in a reasonably short time because of atmospheric drag.
IF (and I know it is a big IF) it were possible to "manufacture" aerogels in space, this material could be ideal for capturing/de-orbiting small pieces of debris that would be too difficult/expensive to chase and capture the traditional way (via space tug or whatnot) but still poses a threat. Aerogels have already proven themselves as capable of capturing extremely fast (although tiny) particles moving at literally astronomical speeds without itself disintegrating. It was used precisely for this reason in both the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes.
Now imagine instead of the small plates that were on these probes a very large slab tens or hundreds (thousands?) of meters on a side that would, over time, slowly intercept the smaller particles. Larger fragments would still go right through but might lose enough kinetic energy (without fragmenting and making the problem worse) so as to de-orbit themselves. The only thing that might make this remotely possible is the thought that the aerogel is so light (lighter than air) that a really huge piece could be put into orbit without spending billions in launch something heavy. Of course the only way to keep the launch volume reasonable is to MAKE it in space. Once in space, an ion engine would be required to counteract the atmospheric drag (and loss of kinetic energy from the impacts of the space debris).
By "manufacture" I mean the raw material (I guess it some sort of silicate compound) would have to be brought up from earth but since the resulting aerogel is 99.9% empty space, a little could go a long way. I understand that one way to produce it requires a super-critical liquid carbon-dioxide solution; obviously the CO2 would have to be recycled or better yet would be if a means of producing it directly in vacuum. Chemists, any ideas?
(using the American notation of 1 Trillion = 1,000 Billion). Anyway, they are putting the cart before the horse so to speak. They should really put their effort behind:
1) making long carbon nano-tubes on an industrial scale to build a space elevator. I read somewhere that with such "unobtanium" it would (only) cost 5 Billion to build an initial elevator from which supposedly they could expand.
2) support deep space exploration with the goal of eventually mining asteroids. To build a really decent sized elevator you'll need a LOT of material (megatons). Why bother lifting it out of the gravity well if you could just take a passing NEO and nudge it into geo-sync? Good practice for asteroid deflection also.
I doubt I'll see this before I die (I'm in my mid-40s) but this would truly, completely change the economics of spaceflight. As well as making space based solar power arrays even remotely economical. Who knows, maybe the language of the solar system won't be english or chinese but japanese? (A really really hard language to learn).
Congratulations to LaserMotive and I hope that they (or one of the other participants) quickly claim the remaining prizes.
Still, it occurred to me that the real system (capable of climbing to Geo-sync and beyond) won't be designed in a vacuum (ha ha). I mean, the cable on which these climbers ascend will be exquisitely engineered as well, probably down to the nano-level if it's going to work at all. So shouldn't the contest be that of a cable/climber combination? I mean like what if the cable or climber or both was using some nano patterned material like the underside of a gecko's foot (which lets them cling upside down to ceilings). Or maybe if there was some sort of nano (or not, I saw one made out of large metal bits) "velcro" like material in which case there would have to be hooks on one surface and clasps on another.
As long as the surface of the cable didn't add appreciably to the weight of the (supposed) carbon nanotube structure, it could add tremendously to the gripping power of the climber while still allowing for a practical cable.
I'm not a serious developer and certainly not one that works on mission critical systems but I have a question:
Are there any symbolic math libraries that allow a program to compute and store its interim values symbolically until the final result was needed? (Like, as an AC mentioned earlier, Mathematica?). Of course there would be an memory overhead (but surely the entire Mathematica kernel wouldn't be needed) and performance might be much MUCH slower than current "binary math" libraries but surely in a day of gigabyte RAM chips and gigaflop CPUs (and Terflop GPUs) the added precision would be worth it?
So does anything like this exist? Would it be hard to develop (that's a challenge for you out there!)
I actually read about this specific incidence once; I seem to remember (though honestly not sure) that the design flaw was known and the user manual indicated that the computer needed to be reset every 36 hours. However, in wartime, under attack (there were frequent Scud intercepts), the crew controlling the missile battery opted against shutting it down if even for short time. Maybe even though the manual said it SHOULD be rebooted it did not explain WHY or what the consequences would be.
When I saw the sentence starting "The possibilities..." I mentally filled it in with "are endless".
I was surprised (and a little gratified) to see the summary actually enumerating some of the possibilities instead of hyping it as is normally done. That's good!
Just wanted to mention, it doesn't look like an "engine" (something that produces thrust as opposed to power). In the photo, there is just a collection of tubes where the very large nozzle (nozzles for use in space as opposed to the atmosphere are larger due to the greater expansion of the exhaust gasses) should be. Also there is no massive turbo-pump, fuel feed system needed even on a regeneratively cooled engine (and nozzle).
The fact that the head of the Russian space agency talks about "the development of Megawatt-class nuclear space *power* systems (MCNSPS) for manned spacecraft was crucial for Russia" (my asterisks) further implies that they are in fact designing power systems (for electric propulsion like ion drives) rather than thermal nuclear engines. I have never heard of any Russian program matching the NASA NERVA program, so I would be quite surprised if this was an announcement of them continuing such an effort.
Anyone know if there is enough thrust to counteract the drag the ISS has in the extremely thin atmosphere up there?
Does the running of the ion engine cause adverse effect to any of the delicate instrumentation on board? Does it mess up any electric/magnetic measurements?
Is the power draw too great for it to be used in this fashion?
(TFA says "there are plans" to use it in this fashion but nothing beyond that).
*application of Niven's law: is there any way to make it into a beamed energy weapon against "soft targets" like other satellites in LEO?
Even though I summarized one of the conclusions of the Augustine report I'm sorry to say that I haven't read it through myself. However I think that the approach of going further into deep space and only "landing" (perhaps docking would be a better turn) on minor bodies might be cheaper than you think.
Think of it, no need to develop:
1) a costly lander capable of re-entry on bodies if they have a significant atmosphere, ability to slow via parachute/retro-rockets and have a controlled landing (the mars rover bouncing balloon doesn't scale well to manned vehicles!). This thing will be BIG, we're not talking about a short stay of two guys for a few days; instead how about a crew of four staying for months. Of course the flight control/landing system has to be just about flawless.
2) some sort of habitat capable of keeping out the extra-terrestrial elements like wind, dust storms which may be corrosive (martian soil I understand is pretty nasty), precipitation (frost or carbon dioxide ice buildup), soil movement due to melting of "permafrost" etc. etc. Don't forget that instead of deep space there is that little thing called the day/night cycle which can really make thermal control and solar power generation a real pain. Then there is the fact that space suits need to be designed to handle all this stuff as well as any motorized vehicle. It probably needs to deal with a partial gee environment unlike the zero-gee/micro-gee environment our current space station/space suits already handle (so no astronauts pushing around multi-ton structures with their fingertips). Also, space suits are heavy!
3) now you've got to get the astronauts back UP the gravity well. You have to have a high specific impulse engine that has to be absolutely reliable with real-time flight control systems (otherwise you'll crash) instead of very gently drifting back to the comet/asteroid. So out goes the super-efficient ion/VASIMIR engines (like the 200KW version to be tested on the ISS next year). Instead you'll need to use a chemical engine that can survive the transport and landing (as well as sitting around for YEARS). Of course the engine as well as the ascent vehicle needs to be designed (and one hopes tested) for the aerodynamic forces on liftoff and docking with the orbiter which will take them home. (The orbiter which may have been sitting up there unattended for a long time will have to be completely autonomous; no repeat of the Apollo program with one guy left in orbit).
So basically, by just going into deep space WITHOUT landing in significant bodies, you are cutting out a HUGE portion of the costs. If the ISS was made a little stronger and had radiation shield (magnetic shielding perhaps? or just a "storm shelter"), you could almost just attach an ion drive (and a nuclear power plant) and it could go anywhere in the solar system! Think of it in terms of airplanes, the two most dangerous times are: landing and taking off. Maybe we shouldn't bother.
The Augustine commission reporting to President Obama recommended that we skip LANDING on the Moon and Mars and instead consider progressively deeper space voyages (first to L1 earth moon point, then perhaps L2 earth sun point, then Mars flyby/orbit or asteroid visits). For example astronauts in Mars orbit could send robotic probes to land on Mars which could be much more effective without the 10 minute time lag to earth. (Can you say telepresence?). Visiting comets and asteroids would be a major goal not just for scientific knowledge (and the knowledge as to how to eventually prevent them from hitting us) but ultimately in-situ resource exploitation.
They feel that this approach would lead to "the most steady cadence of steady improvement." and keep us from inconsistent achievements in space (like not leaving earth orbit for 40 years!). Some would say that this approach would be lacking in the photo-ops necessary to maintain interest in the space program (no footprints on Martian soil) but I think there would be plenty of cool vistas (rendezvous with a comet or even orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter assuming they figure out radiation shielding) to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing. The science return would be much greater because it would hopefully utilize both man and machine at their best (robots on one way trips down a gravity well while the humans provide the intuition and flexibility from orbit). If you can figure out radiation shielding and bone loss from zero-g, we could go just about anywhere in the solar system (with a good ion drive and nuclear power plant). Now with the presence of water confirmed on at least (some) of these smaller bodies, they could stay there for long periods of time.
The article says that the comet had an orbit around Jupiter of 12 years. Well Jupiter has an orbital period around the sun of almost exactly 12 years also. Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
I believe that there is a NEO that basically does the same thing around earth. It travels in an orbit around the sun just slightly different from the earth so that sometimes it is in front of the earth on it's path and sometimes it is behind. From our perspective it makes a complex lissajous (spelling?) track. But I seem to remember it is definitely NOT "orbiting" the earth.
The article doesn't specifically state whether or not the comet is gravitationally bound to Jupiter which I guess is the definition of "orbiting" (I'm not a professional astronomer). Even if it was orbiting Jupiter, with a period of 12 years it was very loosely bound. In any case, how was it brought into Jupiter's proximity? How did it get ejected? Where is it now?
So it seems this would be a great excuse to put a reasonably high powered laser in space.
It could communicate with submarines over a vast area (I don't mean by illuminating the entire area at once, instead it would target many different pinpoint locations only one of which has the submarine it wants to communicate with).
The enemy wouldn't even be able to follow the track of aircraft that would otherwise be communicating with the submarines.
Instant, high bandwidth communications down to submarines worldwide would solve some real operational problems. (Like in the movie "Crimson Tide"). Unfortunately most schemes to communicate back give away the submarine's position. Perhaps they could modulate the neutrino flux from the nuclear reactors on board?
Agreed but since we are trying to create a giant shadow I figure that the last thing we want to power this thing with is with solar cells.
Yeah, I ran some "back of the envelope" calculations but for all I know, they're about as good as ones that could come out of a back orifice! (I'm not an astrophysicist).
Seriously though, it really depends on how small you can grind up the asteroid. Of course, if they're that small the solar wind will blow them away rather quickly (like a comet's tail).
The best corridors were from the movie 2001. In it we have:
- The long corridor connecting the crew module from the propulsion system on the Discovery. Note it was octagonal in section and had no up or down as it was only to be accessed in zero-g.
- The short corridor/connector in the shuttle to the moon where the mod space stewardess walks in and, thanks to the tricks of a rotating set and fixed camera, travels up the wall onto the "ceiling" and exits. (She is supposedly held on by her velcro shoes).
- The short connector on the Discovery which is where the non-rotating main part of the space-craft meets the rotating part of the crew module. The astronauts must float down it and then clamber down a spinning opening to the part of the spacecraft that has artificial gravity. This is also another great "corridor", here Stanley Kubrik built basically an enclosed ferris wheel and in some memorable shots, had his astronauts jogging all around the "wheel".
Amazing what you can do with a script that isn't pseudo science and a director who cares (and has a good budget!).