How about taking a SMALL NEO asteroid, carefully put it into L1 (earth-sun) and then slowly grind it into dust (spraying the dust to form a slowly dispersing cloud). If the particles are small enough, an asteroid perhaps 100m cubed could block out perhaps 1% of the sun for a few decades. Not only would it lessen our global warming predicament (temporarily until the cloud disperses through radiation pressure completely, but that's a good thing we don't want a permanent fix!) but it would teach us very valuable lessons on how to move celestial objects around; first for our protection and later for resources.
Needed: a (probably nuclear powered) mass mover/ion drive (a gravity tractor is probably too slow for anything but gentle nudges). Then some sort of grinding machine (celestial snow blower?) which will be powered by said nuclear reactor (the dust cloud will make solar panels ineffectual).
* I really liked the idea of iron fertilization of the ocean "deserts" but I guess it was not proven effective and the possibility of creating huge amounts of jellyfish rather than tuna was not a good thing.
Actually the orbital dynamics discovered(?) by Johannes Kepler (or Newton) was never in doubt regardless of what the article says. That's because what they're really talking about here is the rate of drag caused by the star the planet is orbiting; this needless to say was never conceived of let alone formulated 400 years ago. Without these stellar winds coming from the star, the planet would keep orbiting just fine forever (unless the star was a really dense object in which case general relativity would come to play but I digress).
The astronomers think that some (relatively new) theories regarding the amount of stellar wind from the parent star could be wrong, otherwise the planet is due to fall into the star in ~1 million years, a time too short on the scale of the lifetime of the system to be chalked up to coincidence. Doesn't have the same sound bite as claiming that 400 years of science could be wrong though.
I agree completely with the poster. Look at the example that another poster fahrbot-bot put in: Titanic. Who else could make a movie for which everyone knew the ending (in fact there was already a previously made classic film) and create the largest blockbuster IN HISTORY? Who else could blend a historic event from the almost dead past, and through plot contrivances make the story relevant and moving to a modern day audience? Who else could utilize the absolute state of the art deep-submersible technology to actually VISIT the site of the disaster to show people in an utterly fascinating way the remains of this tragedy and remind us that the passengers on that vessel were once living breathing people like all of us?
I believe the worldwide audience for that film was over a billion people. Can a billion people be wrong? Can any of the critics here claim to have done or made anything that has touched more than a tiny fraction of that number?
From what I understand (and once being in the film industry I have a little knowledge of this matter) he is not always the easiest person to work with (seemed fine to me). So be it; maybe he's like Steve Jobs, a real S.O.B. but capable of creating masterpieces. Or do you also think that everyone who bought an iPhone and a Mac are idiots? (Ok, I set myself up with that one).
On an aside, did you do know that he is a champion of space exploration? (In addition to being an accomplished engineer as well as helicopter pilot). Not only did he create an IMAX 3D film about a possible trip to Europa but he paid for (I believe from his own pocket) a set of designs for a Manned mission to mars. Very nice computer renderings of launch vehicles, landers and rovers; made not as eye-candy but as a physically realizable proposal. Of course his films themselves have pushed the state of the art of film making (sometimes painfully, just ask anyone who worked on Abyss). Remember when T2 came out with the metal blob? It ushered in a new era in computer graphics. Likewise early reviews have said Avatar may do it again.
Anyway, he believed so strongly in Titanic that he pushed Fox/Paramount (the film was so expensive the costs had to be shared!) to spend over $200M on it. When it went overbudget (perhaps because of the life size set he built in the newly created studio he opened in Baja California) he agreed to drop his cut of the gross (points). No need crying for his loss; after Titanic studios are willing to throw him money in the hope he'll do something for them (like when Disney financed his return to Titanic in "Ghosts of the Abyss"). Who amongst us have such faith in our convictions and abilities?
So I would tend to give Mr. Cameron the benefit of the doubt. Most people are probably not interested in spaceships and blue skinned aliens (With tails! Wrapped in fishnet!). But, like Titanic, by adding a "human" element and a love story (from the trailer I think there are two in Avatar) he may get more of humanity to watch something that they ordinarily would pass by and open their minds a little. Is your mind open?
I mean the technical idea behind the laser which I've always wondered if it would work. In the movie, some (Caltech?) students take an optically pumped up gas (like the gas used in a carbon dioxide or neon laser I suppose) and freeze it into a solid while it is still optically pumped up. Since the now solid gas is still optically pumped up and is many many times denser than a gas, they achieve a corresponding increase in the power density which allows a small rod of it to pop a lot of popcorn. Sure beats the oxygen-iodine(?) chemical laser they're putting in the 747 for the airforce. The gas tanks are huge which is one reason why it's limited to 40 shots I think. Also the environmental impact from that much combusting iodine is probably not good (wonder what it does to the ozone up there).
I know it was just a movie and probably for some very simple thermodynamic/quantum physics based reason it couldn't work but why not? Would the atoms/molecules in a "pumped" up gas have to be lowered to a lower energy state before it could be frozen? Is there a correlation between the energy levels of the electrons in their shells and the temperature of a gas? Any answers out there?
As a once (very long ago!) C.S. major, I'm curious to know how they got around Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. While their system is certainly not "complete" if someone can explain (in advanced layman's terms!) what they left out and how that allowed them to formally prove the correctness of their kernel, it would be much appreciated. (Is it because, as an AC wrote, the spec was written in C? Does this "hide" the parts which are unprovable?)
If you get a chance to look at TFA, you'll see a comparison between the light curve as captured by ground based observatories and by Kepler. Makes a pretty compelling statement for doing observations in space, no noise! (Actually there is noise but you have to really zoom into the data like they do on the Kepler web site).
Anyway, I've been following the Kepler program on their web site and have read of a couple of "reboots" where they had to put the spacecraft into safe mode. Anyone know if they've found/fixed the problem? It's not good to have a program specifically designed for 3+ years of non-stop continuous observation to have intermittent gaps in its observations!
It's amazing to think that within a few years we should know if there are plentiful earth sized planets in the "habitable zones" around stars! Extrapolating from today's news release, maybe we'll even know if they have atmospheres! (Does anyone know how much more difficult it would be to "see" an atmosphere around an earth sized planet as opposed to a "hot jupiter"?).
So is this better than the "Rods from God" ballistically launched sub-orbital titanium rods (as large as a telephone pole I've heard) at penetrating bunkers?
They don't need a billion dollar manned bomber to deliver it (only a $10 million ICBM). Delivery time is faster too. Accuracy I'm not so sure about. Probably more impressive watching it come down as well (how many weapons would you see that had a reentry trail behind it AND lived to talk about it afterwards?).
The trajectory would have been such that the flyby would have just sent them home. Since they weren't attempting to orbit (or land!) it would just "fly by" Venus and, assuming they aimed it right, used the gravity of Venus to whip them back to earth. (I don't know if they would gain or lose substantial velocity from the encounter as do many gravity assists nowadays, perhaps it would only change direction).
When they arrived back at earth they would get back into the command module for a "standard" re-entry. I assume that it wouldn't be hitting the atmosphere at much greater than escape velocity so the same design which was used for returning from the Moon could be used. (Lunar return missions hit the atmosphere at approximately escape velocity I seem to remember).
The point of a manned mission to Venus? I'd love to hear the grandfather poster's comments on this because other than a really daring (or deadly risky according to another poster) trip I'm not sure how much scientific value could've been gotten from this. I mean, it was a FLYBY which means months of travel for a few hours of close observation. Sure the human factor could be important if there was an instrument breakdown which they could fix but otherwise I don't see a lot of added value. Venus is a featureless orb to the human eye so they would have to be working through instruments anyway (which might make interactive observations more difficult).
* 10 minutes may not seem like much but for any kind of multi-step interactive task which depends on the results of a previous step it is very qualitatively different from real-time feedback. Try driving a car with even 10 seconds delay and you'll see what I mean. It may seem ridiculous that the astronauts would (in one scenario) after traveling 100 million miles, control a robotic manipulator from a few thousand miles away in orbit; but consider that even if they were on the surface they would probably be doing the same. Remember, they're not about to be handling the rocks with their bare hands; at best they'll have bulky spacesuit gloves and in all likelihood they'll be using the same robotic manipulators they would be using from orbit. Bringing the samples inside into their lab? Well they're still probably not going to handle it directly (which would at the very least contaminate it). They'll probably maintain it in a martian environment chamber or vacuum and manipulate it with... robotic manipulators.
* Look if we had faster than light communicators (ansibles?) we could keep the "astronauts" here and save a ton of money. But the universe has thrown us a curve ball and we've gotta deal with it. For the foreseeable future (and we're talking centuries) time lag will be an insurmountable barrier that can only be solved by having a man on the spot (or pretty near it). For an extreme example, please read Arthur C. Clarke's "Meeting with Medusa".
* As far as the Lagrange points go, we've ALREADY got permanent labs there. They're just not manned by humans but rather robots. Recently the Europeans launched Planck and Herschel to L2 Earth-Sun. In a few years the next of NASA's "Great Observatories" the Webb telescope will join them. Wouldn't it be great if we had the ability to service them (like the Hubble?).
* Lastly, while I'm not sure that the WHOLE point of space travel is just to spread ourselves throughout the cosmos (isn't science important? The quest for LIFE? Stopping killer asteroids?), I do agree it is a major motivation. First though, do we have to live on the surface of a sphere? Why not space colonies or habitats carved from asteroids? (Honestly some problems with human physiology may only be fully resolved with genetic engineering). Secondly, we are nowhere near close to colonization of the MOON let alone the solar system. Why? Because until we can get launch costs to the point where they are much cheaper than thousands of dollars per pound we won't be able to afford such grandiose plans. Maybe we can afford a (very) small colony on the moon and an outpost on mars. Otherwise we need some huge breakthrough (anti-gravity, space elevators, carbon-nanotube boosters, the use of nukes in earth's atmosphere). Not happening soon.
* Until then we need to EXPLORE the solar system and not try to COLONIZE a tiny corner of it. We need to see what materials are accessible WITHOUT going down some gravity well (and having to bring it back up). Maybe with the gradual development of deep space travel we'll learn how to mine asteroids and move them (carefully!) with mass drivers. Perhaps we'll develop solar sails to both protect and move small comets so they can be used as refueling stops. Finally, this "deep space" focus is much better suited for asteroid deflection than a Moon/Mars program. If it turns out this programs manages to stop just one killer asteroid, the benefits are well, incalculable.
* Sorry about the funny asterisks but I don't know how to make newlines to create spaces between my paragraphs!
So, can shuttle launches get "carbon credits"? (I know that they aren't actually reducing carbon emissions but if these clouds reduce global warming perhaps they'd be eligible). Is the amount so negligible that it wouldn't come close to offsetting the (horrendously) expensive launches?
Do other spacecraft (Arianne, Delta, Soyuz) also create these clouds?
Good point, my only concern with staging is that it (usually) implies throwing away some very costly equipment (or difficult recovery scheme) and adds complexity. Perhaps a air breathing booster rocket that can land on a runway might be a good compromise.
The most important single advance that could help spaceflight, manned and unmanned would be to reduce the cost to LEO. This will require, ultimately, a SSTO (single stage to orbit) launcher. Of course it's tough (remember the X-34? the Delta Clipper?) but that doesn't mean that with new advances in materials (can you say carbon nanotube reinforced composites) it's impossible. Unless we can bring the cost of access to space down by a factor of at least 10 a lot of these dreams will remain just that; dreams.
After that, new low thrust high specific impulse engines would be very useful along with a compact energy source to power them. VASIMIR sounds promising and maybe magnetic sails (which might have the side benefit of protection against cosmic rays). We'll probably need real nuclear reactors in space like the SNAP program (or the Russian equivalent). Remember the words of an airforce general: "a new plane doesn't make a new engine possible, a new engine makes a new plane possible".
Ultimately, of course, a space elevator is the best way to go. There was a proposal, I think, of building one for less than $10B by using a "small" elevator to bring the materials gradually up from earth (rather than trying to capture an carbonaceous asteroid to use as a material source/counterweight). Of course we'll need those carbon nanotubes again!
These new weapons technologies (needed for interception of ballistic or hypersonic projectiles) will require a colossal amount of electric power. If the ship is already geared up to be capable of storing a lot of power in its batteries, a major hurdle in the deployment of these weapons are overcome.
Maybe they could even use the tremendous kinetic energy of the ship moving at high speed to generate electricity from the motors. Probably only useful in an emergency because it makes your ship a sitting duck!
Just a quick question. "Herschel can't see the stars that Hubble can see." Is a star DARKER than interstellar dust at these frequencies? Or is it just not bright enough to stand out? (Probably has something to do with black body radiation).
I am far from an expert on browsers so I am genuinely curious to know if this will keep the browser from occasionally "stalling". Will it allow the browser to keep downloading/processing the parts of the web page that it can even when certain elements are unavailable? If so, sounds like a good advance!
Coincidentally(?) another study (American Naturalist) claims more attractive MALES releasing fewer sperm (they don't mention any correlation as to the attractiveness of females). Not quite the same thing but related. Found this article at ScienceDaily.com, a great website by the way. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090709095425.htm
I'm posting this really late in the thread so maybe nobody will read it (or care) but... If there is one place on earth that is crying out to see this technology used it is the KILOMETERS (really!) worth of intricate stone carvings at Angkor Wat (Cambodia). I've thought about borrowing (stealing?) a friend's $500,000 laser scanner to capture them but the 1) he (his institute really) probably wouldn't let me 2) the thugs who run Cambodia would probably not let me use it without me paying some extortionate amount. There really is no-where else on earth where you can see the results of thousands of man-years of skilled stone carvers. This priceless cultural heritage should be captured before pollutants like acid rain slowly erodes it or thieves literally dynamite it to pieces. Now perhaps anyone with a good video camera, a steady hand, and a LOT of patience can get this done! Perhaps if this job is too large for any one individual to complete it could be done in sections and the individual video sequences shared over the internet. Anyway, I hope this software is modified to handle video (subject to certain restrictions such as shooting in progressive mode).
I seem to remember Wallace's bed not only (sort of) waking him but dressing him and plopping him down for breakfast (toast, jelly and CHEESE!). It worked most of the time. Of course they are just clay figurines so maybe this isn't a valid comparison.
If you want to see some really great informative graphics look at the what is presented along with the article: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/23/us/Geothermal.html I'm amazed to see such well presented, interesting and informative 3D and 2D graphics in a "mainstream" (non-technical) periodical. Take a look! Anyway, back to the topic. The article also said that advanced geothermal power could produce "as much as 60,000 TIMES the nationâ(TM)s annual energy usage!" (Emphasis mine). Doesn't anyone else find this utterly remarkable? Again, (looking at the spiffy graphics) the power looks widely dispersed GEOgraphically (ha ha) and other than these minor (and yes 3-4 magnitude is minor) quake issues shouldn't be a problem. This could EASILY and COMPLETELY solve our energy problems? Repeat: 60,000 TIMES! (not 60,000 percent which also wouldn't be bad). Even if only 1% of that amount was economically recoverable that's still 600 TIMES! So what am I missing here? (Sorry about the hyperventilating, lots of coffee).
Before Michael Crichton got in bed with the oil industry with "State of Fear" (with rain forest venom dart shooting environmentalists driving Priuses) he wrote some really good science fiction (like "The Andromeda Strain"). In a previous book "The Terminal Man" he wrote about a man who had electrical impulses providing him with biofeedback (which he abuses). Substitute lasers and Voila! It was later made into a movie. Anybody see it? Also, there was an Arthur C. Clarke science fiction story where electrodes were used to "train" Orcas from eating dolphins. Finally, in real life, there was a (I think) DARPA funded project where they managed to remotely control a large beetle into flying whichever direction they chose. A tiny radio triggered electrodes which were connected to the appropriate neurons and thus they could make it go left, right, etc. Gives new meaning to the phrase "bug on the wall". I'm wondering when they'll be able to "improve" this technology so as to make people into remote controlled "zombies"!
Before Michael Crichton got in bed with the oil industry with "State of Fear" (with rain forest venom dart shooting environmentalists driving Priuses) he wrote some really good science fiction (like "The Andromeda Strain"). In a previous book "The Terminal Man" he wrote about a man who had electrical impulses providing him with biofeedback (which he abuses). Substitute lasers and Voila! It was later made into a movie. Anybody see it?
"Superiority" required reading at West Point!
on
Hitler's Stealth Fighter
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There was a short story written by Arthur C. Clarke titled "Superiority" that discussed this. Of course, it being science fiction, the weapons were very interesting (matter annihilators, space distortion systems). Also, since it was written (in the 50s?) some of the vocabulary is quaint (I think the term "torpedoes" refer to what we would call missiles). Still I didn't know (according to Wikipedia) that it was (once?) required reading at West Point! (For those not from the U.S., that is one of the premiere military academies). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)
Slashdot Mirror
How about taking a SMALL NEO asteroid, carefully put it into L1 (earth-sun) and then slowly grind it into dust (spraying the dust to form a slowly dispersing cloud). If the particles are small enough, an asteroid perhaps 100m cubed could block out perhaps 1% of the sun for a few decades. Not only would it lessen our global warming predicament (temporarily until the cloud disperses through radiation pressure completely, but that's a good thing we don't want a permanent fix!) but it would teach us very valuable lessons on how to move celestial objects around; first for our protection and later for resources.
Needed: a (probably nuclear powered) mass mover/ion drive (a gravity tractor is probably too slow for anything but gentle nudges). Then some sort of grinding machine (celestial snow blower?) which will be powered by said nuclear reactor (the dust cloud will make solar panels ineffectual).
* I really liked the idea of iron fertilization of the ocean "deserts" but I guess it was not proven effective and the possibility of creating huge amounts of jellyfish rather than tuna was not a good thing.
Actually the orbital dynamics discovered(?) by Johannes Kepler (or Newton) was never in doubt regardless of what the article says. That's because what they're really talking about here is the rate of drag caused by the star the planet is orbiting; this needless to say was never conceived of let alone formulated 400 years ago. Without these stellar winds coming from the star, the planet would keep orbiting just fine forever (unless the star was a really dense object in which case general relativity would come to play but I digress).
The astronomers think that some (relatively new) theories regarding the amount of stellar wind from the parent star could be wrong, otherwise the planet is due to fall into the star in ~1 million years, a time too short on the scale of the lifetime of the system to be chalked up to coincidence. Doesn't have the same sound bite as claiming that 400 years of science could be wrong though.
I agree completely with the poster. Look at the example that another poster fahrbot-bot put in: Titanic. Who else could make a movie for which everyone knew the ending (in fact there was already a previously made classic film) and create the largest blockbuster IN HISTORY? Who else could blend a historic event from the almost dead past, and through plot contrivances make the story relevant and moving to a modern day audience? Who else could utilize the absolute state of the art deep-submersible technology to actually VISIT the site of the disaster to show people in an utterly fascinating way the remains of this tragedy and remind us that the passengers on that vessel were once living breathing people like all of us?
I believe the worldwide audience for that film was over a billion people. Can a billion people be wrong? Can any of the critics here claim to have done or made anything that has touched more than a tiny fraction of that number?
From what I understand (and once being in the film industry I have a little knowledge of this matter) he is not always the easiest person to work with (seemed fine to me). So be it; maybe he's like Steve Jobs, a real S.O.B. but capable of creating masterpieces. Or do you also think that everyone who bought an iPhone and a Mac are idiots? (Ok, I set myself up with that one).
On an aside, did you do know that he is a champion of space exploration? (In addition to being an accomplished engineer as well as helicopter pilot). Not only did he create an IMAX 3D film about a possible trip to Europa but he paid for (I believe from his own pocket) a set of designs for a Manned mission to mars. Very nice computer renderings of launch vehicles, landers and rovers; made not as eye-candy but as a physically realizable proposal. Of course his films themselves have pushed the state of the art of film making (sometimes painfully, just ask anyone who worked on Abyss). Remember when T2 came out with the metal blob? It ushered in a new era in computer graphics. Likewise early reviews have said Avatar may do it again.
Anyway, he believed so strongly in Titanic that he pushed Fox/Paramount (the film was so expensive the costs had to be shared!) to spend over $200M on it. When it went overbudget (perhaps because of the life size set he built in the newly created studio he opened in Baja California) he agreed to drop his cut of the gross (points). No need crying for his loss; after Titanic studios are willing to throw him money in the hope he'll do something for them (like when Disney financed his return to Titanic in "Ghosts of the Abyss"). Who amongst us have such faith in our convictions and abilities?
So I would tend to give Mr. Cameron the benefit of the doubt. Most people are probably not interested in spaceships and blue skinned aliens (With tails! Wrapped in fishnet!). But, like Titanic, by adding a "human" element and a love story (from the trailer I think there are two in Avatar) he may get more of humanity to watch something that they ordinarily would pass by and open their minds a little. Is your mind open?
I mean the technical idea behind the laser which I've always wondered if it would work. In the movie, some (Caltech?) students take an optically pumped up gas (like the gas used in a carbon dioxide or neon laser I suppose) and freeze it into a solid while it is still optically pumped up. Since the now solid gas is still optically pumped up and is many many times denser than a gas, they achieve a corresponding increase in the power density which allows a small rod of it to pop a lot of popcorn. Sure beats the oxygen-iodine(?) chemical laser they're putting in the 747 for the airforce. The gas tanks are huge which is one reason why it's limited to 40 shots I think. Also the environmental impact from that much combusting iodine is probably not good (wonder what it does to the ozone up there).
I know it was just a movie and probably for some very simple thermodynamic/quantum physics based reason it couldn't work but why not? Would the atoms/molecules in a "pumped" up gas have to be lowered to a lower energy state before it could be frozen? Is there a correlation between the energy levels of the electrons in their shells and the temperature of a gas? Any answers out there?
As a once (very long ago!) C.S. major, I'm curious to know how they got around Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. While their system is certainly not "complete" if someone can explain (in advanced layman's terms!) what they left out and how that allowed them to formally prove the correctness of their kernel, it would be much appreciated. (Is it because, as an AC wrote, the spec was written in C? Does this "hide" the parts which are unprovable?)
Thanks AC, didn't know that! Makes me feel a bit better.
If you get a chance to look at TFA, you'll see a comparison between the light curve as captured by ground based observatories and by Kepler. Makes a pretty compelling statement for doing observations in space, no noise! (Actually there is noise but you have to really zoom into the data like they do on the Kepler web site).
Anyway, I've been following the Kepler program on their web site and have read of a couple of "reboots" where they had to put the spacecraft into safe mode. Anyone know if they've found/fixed the problem? It's not good to have a program specifically designed for 3+ years of non-stop continuous observation to have intermittent gaps in its observations!
It's amazing to think that within a few years we should know if there are plentiful earth sized planets in the "habitable zones" around stars! Extrapolating from today's news release, maybe we'll even know if they have atmospheres! (Does anyone know how much more difficult it would be to "see" an atmosphere around an earth sized planet as opposed to a "hot jupiter"?).
So is this better than the "Rods from God" ballistically launched sub-orbital titanium rods (as large as a telephone pole I've heard) at penetrating bunkers?
They don't need a billion dollar manned bomber to deliver it (only a $10 million ICBM). Delivery time is faster too. Accuracy I'm not so sure about. Probably more impressive watching it come down as well (how many weapons would you see that had a reentry trail behind it AND lived to talk about it afterwards?).
The trajectory would have been such that the flyby would have just sent them home. Since they weren't attempting to orbit (or land!) it would just "fly by" Venus and, assuming they aimed it right, used the gravity of Venus to whip them back to earth. (I don't know if they would gain or lose substantial velocity from the encounter as do many gravity assists nowadays, perhaps it would only change direction).
When they arrived back at earth they would get back into the command module for a "standard" re-entry. I assume that it wouldn't be hitting the atmosphere at much greater than escape velocity so the same design which was used for returning from the Moon could be used. (Lunar return missions hit the atmosphere at approximately escape velocity I seem to remember).
The point of a manned mission to Venus? I'd love to hear the grandfather poster's comments on this because other than a really daring (or deadly risky according to another poster) trip I'm not sure how much scientific value could've been gotten from this. I mean, it was a FLYBY which means months of travel for a few hours of close observation. Sure the human factor could be important if there was an instrument breakdown which they could fix but otherwise I don't see a lot of added value. Venus is a featureless orb to the human eye so they would have to be working through instruments anyway (which might make interactive observations more difficult).
My response to you is a four letter word... Time.
* 10 minutes may not seem like much but for any kind of multi-step interactive task which depends on the results of a previous step it is very qualitatively different from real-time feedback. Try driving a car with even 10 seconds delay and you'll see what I mean. It may seem ridiculous that the astronauts would (in one scenario) after traveling 100 million miles, control a robotic manipulator from a few thousand miles away in orbit; but consider that even if they were on the surface they would probably be doing the same. Remember, they're not about to be handling the rocks with their bare hands; at best they'll have bulky spacesuit gloves and in all likelihood they'll be using the same robotic manipulators they would be using from orbit. Bringing the samples inside into their lab? Well they're still probably not going to handle it directly (which would at the very least contaminate it). They'll probably maintain it in a martian environment chamber or vacuum and manipulate it with... robotic manipulators.
* Look if we had faster than light communicators (ansibles?) we could keep the "astronauts" here and save a ton of money. But the universe has thrown us a curve ball and we've gotta deal with it. For the foreseeable future (and we're talking centuries) time lag will be an insurmountable barrier that can only be solved by having a man on the spot (or pretty near it). For an extreme example, please read Arthur C. Clarke's "Meeting with Medusa".
* As far as the Lagrange points go, we've ALREADY got permanent labs there. They're just not manned by humans but rather robots. Recently the Europeans launched Planck and Herschel to L2 Earth-Sun. In a few years the next of NASA's "Great Observatories" the Webb telescope will join them. Wouldn't it be great if we had the ability to service them (like the Hubble?).
* Lastly, while I'm not sure that the WHOLE point of space travel is just to spread ourselves throughout the cosmos (isn't science important? The quest for LIFE? Stopping killer asteroids?), I do agree it is a major motivation. First though, do we have to live on the surface of a sphere? Why not space colonies or habitats carved from asteroids? (Honestly some problems with human physiology may only be fully resolved with genetic engineering). Secondly, we are nowhere near close to colonization of the MOON let alone the solar system. Why? Because until we can get launch costs to the point where they are much cheaper than thousands of dollars per pound we won't be able to afford such grandiose plans. Maybe we can afford a (very) small colony on the moon and an outpost on mars. Otherwise we need some huge breakthrough (anti-gravity, space elevators, carbon-nanotube boosters, the use of nukes in earth's atmosphere). Not happening soon.
* Until then we need to EXPLORE the solar system and not try to COLONIZE a tiny corner of it. We need to see what materials are accessible WITHOUT going down some gravity well (and having to bring it back up). Maybe with the gradual development of deep space travel we'll learn how to mine asteroids and move them (carefully!) with mass drivers. Perhaps we'll develop solar sails to both protect and move small comets so they can be used as refueling stops. Finally, this "deep space" focus is much better suited for asteroid deflection than a Moon/Mars program. If it turns out this programs manages to stop just one killer asteroid, the benefits are well, incalculable.
* Sorry about the funny asterisks but I don't know how to make newlines to create spaces between my paragraphs!
So, can shuttle launches get "carbon credits"? (I know that they aren't actually reducing carbon emissions but if these clouds reduce global warming perhaps they'd be eligible). Is the amount so negligible that it wouldn't come close to offsetting the (horrendously) expensive launches?
Do other spacecraft (Arianne, Delta, Soyuz) also create these clouds?
Good point, my only concern with staging is that it (usually) implies throwing away some very costly equipment (or difficult recovery scheme) and adds complexity. Perhaps a air breathing booster rocket that can land on a runway might be a good compromise.
The most important single advance that could help spaceflight, manned and unmanned would be to reduce the cost to LEO. This will require, ultimately, a SSTO (single stage to orbit) launcher. Of course it's tough (remember the X-34? the Delta Clipper?) but that doesn't mean that with new advances in materials (can you say carbon nanotube reinforced composites) it's impossible. Unless we can bring the cost of access to space down by a factor of at least 10 a lot of these dreams will remain just that; dreams.
After that, new low thrust high specific impulse engines would be very useful along with a compact energy source to power them. VASIMIR sounds promising and maybe magnetic sails (which might have the side benefit of protection against cosmic rays). We'll probably need real nuclear reactors in space like the SNAP program (or the Russian equivalent). Remember the words of an airforce general: "a new plane doesn't make a new engine possible, a new engine makes a new plane possible".
Ultimately, of course, a space elevator is the best way to go. There was a proposal, I think, of building one for less than $10B by using a "small" elevator to bring the materials gradually up from earth (rather than trying to capture an carbonaceous asteroid to use as a material source/counterweight). Of course we'll need those carbon nanotubes again!
Can you say "Rail Gun" or "LASER"?
These new weapons technologies (needed for interception of ballistic or hypersonic projectiles) will require a colossal amount of electric power. If the ship is already geared up to be capable of storing a lot of power in its batteries, a major hurdle in the deployment of these weapons are overcome.
Maybe they could even use the tremendous kinetic energy of the ship moving at high speed to generate electricity from the motors. Probably only useful in an emergency because it makes your ship a sitting duck!
Oh, I didn't realize that it would filter out the frequencies it was itself radiating in but I guess that makes sense. Thanks! - Teddy
Just a quick question. "Herschel can't see the stars that Hubble can see." Is a star DARKER than interstellar dust at these frequencies? Or is it just not bright enough to stand out? (Probably has something to do with black body radiation).
I am far from an expert on browsers so I am genuinely curious to know if this will keep the browser from occasionally "stalling". Will it allow the browser to keep downloading/processing the parts of the web page that it can even when certain elements are unavailable? If so, sounds like a good advance!
Coincidentally(?) another study (American Naturalist) claims more attractive MALES releasing fewer sperm (they don't mention any correlation as to the attractiveness of females). Not quite the same thing but related.
Found this article at ScienceDaily.com, a great website by the way. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090709095425.htm
I'm posting this really late in the thread so maybe nobody will read it (or care) but...
If there is one place on earth that is crying out to see this technology used it is the KILOMETERS (really!) worth of intricate stone carvings at Angkor Wat (Cambodia). I've thought about borrowing (stealing?) a friend's $500,000 laser scanner to capture them but the 1) he (his institute really) probably wouldn't let me 2) the thugs who run Cambodia would probably not let me use it without me paying some extortionate amount. There really is no-where else on earth where you can see the results of thousands of man-years of skilled stone carvers. This priceless cultural heritage should be captured before pollutants like acid rain slowly erodes it or thieves literally dynamite it to pieces.
Now perhaps anyone with a good video camera, a steady hand, and a LOT of patience can get this done! Perhaps if this job is too large for any one individual to complete it could be done in sections and the individual video sequences shared over the internet. Anyway, I hope this software is modified to handle video (subject to certain restrictions such as shooting in progressive mode).
I seem to remember Wallace's bed not only (sort of) waking him but dressing him and plopping him down for breakfast (toast, jelly and CHEESE!). It worked most of the time. Of course they are just clay figurines so maybe this isn't a valid comparison.
I think you'll find this article in the NYTimes to be of interest:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/can-you-get-fit-in-six-minutes-a-week/
If you want to see some really great informative graphics look at the what is presented along with the article: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/23/us/Geothermal.html
I'm amazed to see such well presented, interesting and informative 3D and 2D graphics in a "mainstream" (non-technical) periodical. Take a look!
Anyway, back to the topic. The article also said that advanced geothermal power could produce "as much as 60,000 TIMES the nationâ(TM)s annual energy usage!" (Emphasis mine).
Doesn't anyone else find this utterly remarkable? Again, (looking at the spiffy graphics) the power looks widely dispersed GEOgraphically (ha ha) and other than these minor (and yes 3-4 magnitude is minor) quake issues shouldn't be a problem. This could EASILY and COMPLETELY solve our energy problems? Repeat: 60,000 TIMES! (not 60,000 percent which also wouldn't be bad). Even if only 1% of that amount was economically recoverable that's still 600 TIMES! So what am I missing here? (Sorry about the hyperventilating, lots of coffee).
Before Michael Crichton got in bed with the oil industry with "State of Fear" (with rain forest venom dart shooting environmentalists driving Priuses) he wrote some really good science fiction (like "The Andromeda Strain"). In a previous book "The Terminal Man" he wrote about a man who had electrical impulses providing him with biofeedback (which he abuses). Substitute lasers and Voila!
It was later made into a movie. Anybody see it?
Also, there was an Arthur C. Clarke science fiction story where electrodes were used to "train" Orcas from eating dolphins.
Finally, in real life, there was a (I think) DARPA funded project where they managed to remotely control a large beetle into flying whichever direction they chose. A tiny radio triggered electrodes which were connected to the appropriate neurons and thus they could make it go left, right, etc. Gives new meaning to the phrase "bug on the wall".
I'm wondering when they'll be able to "improve" this technology so as to make people into remote controlled "zombies"!
Before Michael Crichton got in bed with the oil industry with "State of Fear" (with rain forest venom dart shooting environmentalists driving Priuses) he wrote some really good science fiction (like "The Andromeda Strain"). In a previous book "The Terminal Man" he wrote about a man who had electrical impulses providing him with biofeedback (which he abuses). Substitute lasers and Voila!
It was later made into a movie. Anybody see it?
There was a short story written by Arthur C. Clarke titled "Superiority" that discussed this. Of course, it being science fiction, the weapons were very interesting (matter annihilators, space distortion systems). Also, since it was written (in the 50s?) some of the vocabulary is quaint (I think the term "torpedoes" refer to what we would call missiles).
Still I didn't know (according to Wikipedia) that it was (once?) required reading at West Point! (For those not from the U.S., that is one of the premiere military academies).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)