Christopher Thomas would disagree. He says that were the tether to be cut near the bottom, it would remain floating, suspended from space. It appears there is disagreement among the tether community on this crucial point.
Antimissile interception range is left as an exercise for people with more military background than I have.
Antimissile interception is experimental at best today.
I'd worry more about space junk, myself. More of the tether could fall.
So what would you do to protect the tether from space junk?
Secondly, in the event of military conflict, how do you propose to defend the tether from "space junk" that has been purposively deployed by an adversary for the purpose of breaking the tether?
You say that if a tether is clipped at the bottom, it will continue to hang from space down to the point where it was clipped. On the other hand, quasi_stellar says that if it is clipped near the bottom, the tether assembly will fly off into space. It would appear that the tether community is not in agreement on this crucial issue.
The argument in your post is unpersuasive.
One last point. A reason why I'm unconvinced that the tether would burn up in the atmosphere, were it to come down, is the conduction of heat. Most of the tether would be in space. The part of the tether that was falling through the atmosphere would be subjected to great heat, but it seems like much of that heat would be conducted upwards to that part of the tether in frigid vacuum, where the heat would dissipate. The heat, being conducted away from the tether in the atmosphere, would not burn that part of the tether. Is that not true?
You assess a space tether as better than a space plane because the futuristic technology we need for one is more feasible than the futuristic technology we need for the other. I think that remains to be seen.
We should not forget that materials science has advanced greatly in the 30 years since the space shuttle was designed.
A space tether would be a huge structure. Yes, it would be thin. It would nevertheless be very tall. As a result, it would be easy to hit. A cruise missile, ICBM, or an airplane that struck the tether would break it. An explosive device, including either a conventional explosive or a nuclear device, would break it. If the tether were stationed at sea, a submarine could clip the tether, or shoot a torpedo at it.
There would be no way to defend the tether from terrorists. You would have to create a large no-fly zone and a no-sail zone around the perimeter. This would create a humongous, circular no-commerce zone that would harm the global economy.
Natural events are also dangerous. A lightning strike could break it. An earthquake or volcanic activity could result in enough stress on the tether to break it. A tornado, with winds in excess of 400 mph, could damage the tether.
If a tether ever became damaged or underperformed its design specs, there would be no way to repair it. It must always remain in place.
Should we ever decide to remove the tether, there would be no way to take it down without it causing a catastrophe on the ground. Thus, there would be no way to ever upgrade the tether.
What comes up must come down. A good engineer builds something so not only does it perform well, but when it breaks it won't cause major problems.
Any breakage of the tether would result in catastrophe. First, there would be damage to the ground. Anything that big (about as long as the circumference of the Earth) is not going to totally burn up in the atmosphere.
The tether has the advantage of allowing many trips into space. That is also one of its biggest disadvantages. If we could take 50+ trips into space every year, we would become highly dependent on space. Our economic security and probably our military security and national security would come to depend on this tether.
The big problem is that once the tether is destroyed, you're probably looking at years before a replacement tether could be erected. If the first tether were brought down by terrorists or a wartime enemy, then military conflict would have to subside before the reconstruction project could begin. As a result, many of the tether-dependent assets we would have in space would be stranded for many years. Eventually the assets would die off from lack of oxygen, fuel, and supplies.
Advantages of space planes
The advantages of space planes are significant. First, you would have more than one space plane. Thus, if one were destroyed, you could still reach your assets in space with your other space planes.
A space plane is less vulnerable to terrorism because it is (1) smaller and (2) mobile. That makes it a lot harder to hit.
If a space plane comes down, it poses almost no risk to the ground. A good example is Columbia. Even if the fears about radioactive or toxic debris prove true, the area of effect will be minimal, relative to the area of effect of the tether breaking.
Space planes could go into space much more often the shuttle. That would be the whole point of building them. If that is not technologically achievable, then we would just stick with the shuttle. But even today, the space shuttle is based on 30-50 year old technology. If we commit financial resources behind something, we can build it. That's what we've always done.
The first step is to increase the budget. Bush proposes to give NASA about $14 billion next year. Yet, that is only 0.6% of his proposed $2.2 trillion federal budget. It's just enough for the creaky space shuttle program and little else.
We should double NASA's budget to at least the $30 billion level per year. Give NASA the mission of establishing a lunar base and a journey to Mars. Tell them to get both done within 10 years. Attract the very best scientists and engineers to NASA.
That provides the parameters. Only then can you decide what intermediate technology do you need to get there. The obvious missing link is a reliable, cheap replacement for the space shuttle. I personally think the space plane will be the superior alternative, but all the options should be studied. Then you look at whether the ISS would be useful.
China will put a man in space this year. If China is putting men into space while we're sitting on our hands, the USA will cease to be the only superpower. China will be in position to spread its influence, and thus totalitarianism, across the globe. This is about whether the world, and space, will be free, or will be dominated by ruthless dictators.
Slashdot is now teaching us the English language? Yeah, right.
I hope that Slashdot articles continue to improve in the areas of spelling and grammar. The last few months have seen noticeable but inconsistent improvements.
As for online dictionaries, I paid the ~$30 per year to get access to http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/. It's worth every penny. No paper dictionary or other online dictionary beats it for either speed or thoroughness. I guess the OED would be more thorough, but I'd argue that that is not just a dictionary, but an encyclopedia of the language. The Unabridged MW also has WAV files, so you don't have to learn yet another pronunciation key system.
I'm extremely suspicious because I have a DeskJet 660Cse with the same power supply brick that was working fine up until a month ago when it would go from printing fine to printing several sheets of garbage out of any given print job
Sounds like you just need to reinstall the driver.
I doubt it's the power supply unless there is no sign of life from the printer at all, or if the printer literally starts on fire or something.
The Vikings traded each player to the Redskins. The Vikings got something in return each time. The Redskins released Gannon. The Redskins later lost Brad Johnson to free agency. They got nothing for either of them.
Gannon wasn't a good QB in the early 90s when he was with the Vikings and Redskins. Letting him go then was the right decision. He matured as a QB only recently. Either team should have kept Brad Johnson, though. At least the Vikings got something when they traded him away. It's the Redskins organization that looks terrible in light of this Super Bowl.
Yes, reliable methods to crack these locks are easy and well-known to locksmiths and smart bad guys. Now everybody knows about them, including ordinary folks, teenagers, and, unfortunately, terrorists. The old lock systems are obsolete.
Most middle and upper class hotels have moved to electronic key entry systems. Many businesses and organizations have as well. With the heavy news coverage this is getting, now everybody, even poor folks, will want to move to systems, electronic or mechanical, that are less vulnerable. The increased demand should lead to larger economies of scales for such systems. Maybe think about buying lock stocks, if there are any.
Slashdot Mirror
regalia != memorabilia
Christopher Thomas would disagree. He says that were the tether to be cut near the bottom, it would remain floating, suspended from space. It appears there is disagreement among the tether community on this crucial point.
Antimissile interception is experimental at best today.
I'd worry more about space junk, myself. More of the tether could fall.
So what would you do to protect the tether from space junk?
Secondly, in the event of military conflict, how do you propose to defend the tether from "space junk" that has been purposively deployed by an adversary for the purpose of breaking the tether?
You say that if a tether is clipped at the bottom, it will continue to hang from space down to the point where it was clipped. On the other hand, quasi_stellar says that if it is clipped near the bottom, the tether assembly will fly off into space. It would appear that the tether community is not in agreement on this crucial issue.
The argument in your post is unpersuasive.
One last point. A reason why I'm unconvinced that the tether would burn up in the atmosphere, were it to come down, is the conduction of heat. Most of the tether would be in space. The part of the tether that was falling through the atmosphere would be subjected to great heat, but it seems like much of that heat would be conducted upwards to that part of the tether in frigid vacuum, where the heat would dissipate. The heat, being conducted away from the tether in the atmosphere, would not burn that part of the tether. Is that not true?
We should not forget that materials science has advanced greatly in the 30 years since the space shuttle was designed.
A space tether would be a huge structure. Yes, it would be thin. It would nevertheless be very tall. As a result, it would be easy to hit. A cruise missile, ICBM, or an airplane that struck the tether would break it. An explosive device, including either a conventional explosive or a nuclear device, would break it. If the tether were stationed at sea, a submarine could clip the tether, or shoot a torpedo at it.
There would be no way to defend the tether from terrorists. You would have to create a large no-fly zone and a no-sail zone around the perimeter. This would create a humongous, circular no-commerce zone that would harm the global economy.
Natural events are also dangerous. A lightning strike could break it. An earthquake or volcanic activity could result in enough stress on the tether to break it. A tornado, with winds in excess of 400 mph, could damage the tether.
If a tether ever became damaged or underperformed its design specs, there would be no way to repair it. It must always remain in place.
Should we ever decide to remove the tether, there would be no way to take it down without it causing a catastrophe on the ground. Thus, there would be no way to ever upgrade the tether.
What comes up must come down. A good engineer builds something so not only does it perform well, but when it breaks it won't cause major problems.
Any breakage of the tether would result in catastrophe. First, there would be damage to the ground. Anything that big (about as long as the circumference of the Earth) is not going to totally burn up in the atmosphere.
The tether has the advantage of allowing many trips into space. That is also one of its biggest disadvantages. If we could take 50+ trips into space every year, we would become highly dependent on space. Our economic security and probably our military security and national security would come to depend on this tether.
The big problem is that once the tether is destroyed, you're probably looking at years before a replacement tether could be erected. If the first tether were brought down by terrorists or a wartime enemy, then military conflict would have to subside before the reconstruction project could begin. As a result, many of the tether-dependent assets we would have in space would be stranded for many years. Eventually the assets would die off from lack of oxygen, fuel, and supplies.
Advantages of space planes
The advantages of space planes are significant. First, you would have more than one space plane. Thus, if one were destroyed, you could still reach your assets in space with your other space planes.
A space plane is less vulnerable to terrorism because it is (1) smaller and (2) mobile. That makes it a lot harder to hit.
If a space plane comes down, it poses almost no risk to the ground. A good example is Columbia. Even if the fears about radioactive or toxic debris prove true, the area of effect will be minimal, relative to the area of effect of the tether breaking.
Space planes could go into space much more often the shuttle. That would be the whole point of building them. If that is not technologically achievable, then we would just stick with the shuttle. But even today, the space shuttle is based on 30-50 year old technology. If we commit financial resources behind something, we can build it. That's what we've always done.
We should double NASA's budget to at least the $30 billion level per year. Give NASA the mission of establishing a lunar base and a journey to Mars. Tell them to get both done within 10 years. Attract the very best scientists and engineers to NASA.
That provides the parameters. Only then can you decide what intermediate technology do you need to get there. The obvious missing link is a reliable, cheap replacement for the space shuttle. I personally think the space plane will be the superior alternative, but all the options should be studied. Then you look at whether the ISS would be useful.
China will put a man in space this year. If China is putting men into space while we're sitting on our hands, the USA will cease to be the only superpower. China will be in position to spread its influence, and thus totalitarianism, across the globe. This is about whether the world, and space, will be free, or will be dominated by ruthless dictators.
To control the web, and eventually the Internet.
For safety reasons, no one should install fiber optic cable unless they have the right training and equipment.
I hope that Slashdot articles continue to improve in the areas of spelling and grammar. The last few months have seen noticeable but inconsistent improvements.
As for online dictionaries, I paid the ~$30 per year to get access to http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/. It's worth every penny. No paper dictionary or other online dictionary beats it for either speed or thoroughness. I guess the OED would be more thorough, but I'd argue that that is not just a dictionary, but an encyclopedia of the language. The Unabridged MW also has WAV files, so you don't have to learn yet another pronunciation key system.
All right. Since nothing is working, I'd recommend spending money to get a new printer. It could cost you upwards of $50, though. Example.
BTW, if your phone company won't take your order for a "dry pair," ask for an "alarm circuit."
You should be able to just plug both of them in, configure your TCP/IP stacks to use the DSL "modem" as a gateway, and you're off to the races.
Download a new driver from HP's web site and install that. I strongly suspect the software configuration.
This is a duplicate story. Again. Am I supposed to comment on this twice?
Sounds like you just need to reinstall the driver.
I doubt it's the power supply unless there is no sign of life from the printer at all, or if the printer literally starts on fire or something.
Gannon wasn't a good QB in the early 90s when he was with the Vikings and Redskins. Letting him go then was the right decision. He matured as a QB only recently. Either team should have kept Brad Johnson, though. At least the Vikings got something when they traded him away. It's the Redskins organization that looks terrible in light of this Super Bowl.
Most middle and upper class hotels have moved to electronic key entry systems. Many businesses and organizations have as well. With the heavy news coverage this is getting, now everybody, even poor folks, will want to move to systems, electronic or mechanical, that are less vulnerable. The increased demand should lead to larger economies of scales for such systems. Maybe think about buying lock stocks, if there are any.