Hmmm... I fall between DC and Research Triangle. I'm making a little over half of the so called "average". Somehow that makes sense... (half way between, making half as much, twisted humor:p
*Puts on Happy Helmet*
I love my job, I love my job, I love my job, glad I have a job...
Somebody please post the text. It's asking for a user id for authentication; and, I'm not a user...
I'd like to see just how poorly I rate (corrected for crappy South East Virginia wages, of course). Let me put it this way: I've seen the articles listing the average starting salary for a new college graduate; and, I want to know where I went wrong...
It might work in something the size of an ammo box... But if we're talking NES, it's going to be much more difficult. If we assume that the power supply is external and you're using the on board video, By the time you get two drives into the case (CD-RW or DVD and Harddrive) you're getting pretty tight on space.
Mounting the fan onto the processor is only done in commodity Intel/AMD PCs. Actually, Dell uses a 4" or 5" case mounted fan and a duct like you describe. Most high end equipment does the same.
As an engineer, I applaud your effort. I still suspect it's gonna get a little warm (too warm to be reliable?). You might want to check the temperatures of the drives, and the north/south bridge chips. You might find they're hotter than you think, once the things been on for several hours (days).
You're already talking about using a 1u rackmount server's heat sink. While you're at it, consider ditching the 40mm fan and run a rackmount blower fan. It'll move more air and be quieter.
If they do, they'll call it a workstation and charge IBM Unix Workstation (RS6000 or Intellistation Power) like pricing... Can we say base pricing "from $8130"
Buy the Apple.
Re:why aren't we using the Russian Shuttle now?
on
The Return of Apollo?
·
· Score: 1
Nasa developed a new heat shield for the X-33. It is made of inconel and titanium panels. It's more durable because it's metal. It can be repaired with a screwdriver; and, I believe all the required testing that remained was an actual flight into space. (it had been flight tested in the atmosphere). This would be ideal for re-usable vehicles
If you're gonna throw it away -- it's probably easier to glue on the silica tiles.
The cost savings in building a new one from scratch... We're not talking about a plane here. We're talking about a simple vehicle. Even if they go with an Apollo style capsule, they're talking about trying to re-use it or it's components. Why not. Why pay for a new avionics sytem EVERY time. Why pay for a shell EVERY time. Why pay for new life support systems EVERY time. I could go on.
I'm not proposing using unproven technology. Everything I mentioned has been thoroughly tested. The lifting body comes right out of the X-33, X-37 and X-40 (actaully goes back much further) and the thermal system comes from work done on the X-33. These systems were successful. You have to make the distinction between the vehicle which failed and the individual systems hardware that worked.
Well, Ok, they're not planning on using the machines in this manner. I have seen it done where a cluster was used to display the data in portions. All had access to the shared memory containing the real-time event data. Each machine was tasked with doing some processing and displaying one aspect of the data. Not exactly real-time video rendering; but, this was in '88 using Sun Ultrasparc's
Why go to the trouble of porting linux to the G5 when you could port the clustering code to OS X and be done with it. Seems like a much simpler task and more cost effective use of labor.
Actually, you're not totally right. You can spread the rendering job across multiple radeon chips, each handling only a portion of the display. The performance and depth of the rendering could be greatly enhanced. SGI does something like this...
God, I wouldn't want OS X, Linux or w2k being used in connection with flight controls or nuclear facilities. Not unless it was fully certified for real-time fault tolerant use!!!
Man, don't scare me like that. You're one of those guys who puts Windows based machines in control of dangerous equipment, aren't you.
The heat output for a 3+GHz p4 or Athlon are on the order of 60-80W. That's not gonna happen in a small box -- the CPU cooling requires an 80mm fan with ducting, all by itself, just to keep from melting down.
Ok, but, the newly redesigned capsule would need to be proofed as well. Either way, there's some time required to certify the "vehicle."
There's currently a lifting body in testing; so, it's not a totally from scratch proposal. (see X-37 and X-40) Lifting bodies, in general, were thoroughly characterized back in the '50s and '60s. It would be fairly easy to stick such a thing onto an Atlas or a Titan.
The new heat shield for the X-33 was tested fairly completely. It was only lacking an actual launch test. It would be ideal; because, it's an inconel / titanium metal shield instead of the fragile silica tiles. It's reusable and easy to repair (got a screwdriver?)
I agree with you in general. IMHO, NASA needs to go with the technologies that are tested and ready for flight, particularly for the current requirement. I just think they've got some stuff they can actually pull "off the shelf" (some of it coming from previously shelved projects) which could give them an advantage over a simple disposable Apollo style capsule.
It's embedded it the ammo box contains a sbc that's monitoring a remote sensor. Ammo boxes aren't exactly NEMA quality but they work fairly well and they're cheap.
In an earlier/. article, a manufacturer is beginning production on a 1.6GHz Pentium 4M miniITX board with gigabit ethernet. I wouldn't call that gutless.
I'm assuming you're complaining about the comment that if the plant is unplugged, it stops generating...
That's very true actually. By law, a fission plant cannont be self energizing. It must obtain the excitation power for it's generators from an external source. If the external source is removed, excitation is removed and no amount of heat results in electrical production...
By saying it would be a step backwards, I'm refering to two things: Sea recovery and disposable. While I do agree that it would do the job, I have a couple of problems with it.
Not that it matters much, I have a problem with a sea recovery. If it could be arranged to have the thing land (gently) on the ground, I see less chance of a failure (such as the thing sinking with the crew on board). I also don't like the dependance on a search and rescue crew looking for the lander out at sea (or on land for that matter). Having said that, I am aware of the successes (and failure) of the previous system.
I was aware that the Apollo and the Soyuz generate lift (I've seen some refer to it more as skimming...) I've also read that the Soyuz has some steering capacity while in the upper atmoshpere. This is all good.
My reason for suggesting the lifting body is to place a limit on the wings; while giving some (limited) steering capability. I also suggested the re-usable heat shield developed for the X-33. It's within our ability, with existing hardware, to have the thing reliably land in a designated area. As far as I'm concerned, it could land with parachutes; landing with wheels on a runway aren't necessary. IMHO, the lifting body would both prevent having to search for the lander each time it comes down by allowing it to decend to a designated site; and, allow the lander to be "re-used"
Granted, the capsule / lander would have to be designed from scratch. Everything I've suggested is available technology that's been tested.
To learn. To build an experience base for human operations in space. So we're not 100% clueless when we decide to actually put people into space to do something serious.
Sort of like practicing how to swim. If you've never practiced, what's gonna happen when you're thrown in the ocean?
Well, one of the arguments is that it would be a step backwards to return to a disposable Apollo like capsule. If you can avoid going backwards, it's a good idea; although, sometimes you just have to.
Probably a good compromise would be a simple small lifting body / capsule design using the thermal system they designed for the x-33. It could be launched on a Titan or similar disposable vehicle. It could be built "on the cheap" and they could claim it was a re-usable vehicle by reusing the capsule and its oms engines.
You're missing the point. Separating the crew and cargo is so that:
The crew can be carried up and down in a smaller, simplier, more reliable vehicle.
Human crews aren't being used to transport cargo back and forth to the ISS, when an unmanned launch can accomplish the same thing.
The CAIB did endorse using the shuttle to carry up the remaining pieces of the ISS which were designed to fit into the cargo bay; however, they're suggesting (in the strongest language short of saying that the shuttle needs to be grounded) that a replacement crew transport needs to be developed post-haste
Slashdot Mirror
*Puts on Happy Helmet* I love my job, I love my job, I love my job, glad I have a job...
I'm one of the "been layed off and took a new job at a lower salary" crowd.
Anyone have any idea how we can re-create the 90's and make it sustainable? I need the money.
It really pissed me off when a guy I knew with no college and some VB scripting experience got a $60k job working for some telemarketing company...
I'm ashamed to say I assume people actually try to secure their web-sites. Perhaps I need to hack/crack more
Yes I was layed off last year. I was lucky enough to find another job, but at a lower salary...
I'd like to see just how poorly I rate (corrected for crappy South East Virginia wages, of course). Let me put it this way: I've seen the articles listing the average starting salary for a new college graduate; and, I want to know where I went wrong...
Mounting the fan onto the processor is only done in commodity Intel/AMD PCs. Actually, Dell uses a 4" or 5" case mounted fan and a duct like you describe. Most high end equipment does the same.
As an engineer, I applaud your effort. I still suspect it's gonna get a little warm (too warm to be reliable?). You might want to check the temperatures of the drives, and the north/south bridge chips. You might find they're hotter than you think, once the things been on for several hours (days).
You're already talking about using a 1u rackmount server's heat sink. While you're at it, consider ditching the 40mm fan and run a rackmount blower fan. It'll move more air and be quieter.
Buy the Apple.
If you're gonna throw it away -- it's probably easier to glue on the silica tiles.
I'm not proposing using unproven technology. Everything I mentioned has been thoroughly tested. The lifting body comes right out of the X-33, X-37 and X-40 (actaully goes back much further) and the thermal system comes from work done on the X-33. These systems were successful. You have to make the distinction between the vehicle which failed and the individual systems hardware that worked.
Well, Ok, they're not planning on using the machines in this manner. I have seen it done where a cluster was used to display the data in portions. All had access to the shared memory containing the real-time event data. Each machine was tasked with doing some processing and displaying one aspect of the data. Not exactly real-time video rendering; but, this was in '88 using Sun Ultrasparc's
Read on. They're putting 8GB of RAM in each machine.
Why go to the trouble of porting linux to the G5 when you could port the clustering code to OS X and be done with it. Seems like a much simpler task and more cost effective use of labor.
Actually, you're not totally right. You can spread the rendering job across multiple radeon chips, each handling only a portion of the display. The performance and depth of the rendering could be greatly enhanced. SGI does something like this...
Man, don't scare me like that. You're one of those guys who puts Windows based machines in control of dangerous equipment, aren't you.
Wasn't there a recent /. article about using Mac OS/X servers on Subs to do visualization? Seems they can't be too hardcore about w2k if this is true.
The heat output for a 3+GHz p4 or Athlon are on the order of 60-80W. That's not gonna happen in a small box -- the CPU cooling requires an 80mm fan with ducting, all by itself, just to keep from melting down.
There's currently a lifting body in testing; so, it's not a totally from scratch proposal. (see X-37 and X-40) Lifting bodies, in general, were thoroughly characterized back in the '50s and '60s. It would be fairly easy to stick such a thing onto an Atlas or a Titan.
The new heat shield for the X-33 was tested fairly completely. It was only lacking an actual launch test. It would be ideal; because, it's an inconel / titanium metal shield instead of the fragile silica tiles. It's reusable and easy to repair (got a screwdriver?)
I agree with you in general. IMHO, NASA needs to go with the technologies that are tested and ready for flight, particularly for the current requirement. I just think they've got some stuff they can actually pull "off the shelf" (some of it coming from previously shelved projects) which could give them an advantage over a simple disposable Apollo style capsule.
It's embedded it the ammo box contains a sbc that's monitoring a remote sensor. Ammo boxes aren't exactly NEMA quality but they work fairly well and they're cheap.
Oh, it'll run Windows (if you must...)
I'm assuming you're complaining about the comment that if the plant is unplugged, it stops generating... That's very true actually. By law, a fission plant cannont be self energizing. It must obtain the excitation power for it's generators from an external source. If the external source is removed, excitation is removed and no amount of heat results in electrical production...
Not that it matters much, I have a problem with a sea recovery. If it could be arranged to have the thing land (gently) on the ground, I see less chance of a failure (such as the thing sinking with the crew on board). I also don't like the dependance on a search and rescue crew looking for the lander out at sea (or on land for that matter). Having said that, I am aware of the successes (and failure) of the previous system.
I was aware that the Apollo and the Soyuz generate lift (I've seen some refer to it more as skimming...) I've also read that the Soyuz has some steering capacity while in the upper atmoshpere. This is all good.
My reason for suggesting the lifting body is to place a limit on the wings; while giving some (limited) steering capability. I also suggested the re-usable heat shield developed for the X-33. It's within our ability, with existing hardware, to have the thing reliably land in a designated area. As far as I'm concerned, it could land with parachutes; landing with wheels on a runway aren't necessary. IMHO, the lifting body would both prevent having to search for the lander each time it comes down by allowing it to decend to a designated site; and, allow the lander to be "re-used"
Granted, the capsule / lander would have to be designed from scratch. Everything I've suggested is available technology that's been tested.
One of the interesting facts the the CAIB pointed out was that during the Apollo era, NASA was 6% of the federal budget. Now it's 0.1%
To learn. To build an experience base for human operations in space. So we're not 100% clueless when we decide to actually put people into space to do something serious.
Sort of like practicing how to swim. If you've never practiced, what's gonna happen when you're thrown in the ocean?
Probably a good compromise would be a simple small lifting body / capsule design using the thermal system they designed for the x-33. It could be launched on a Titan or similar disposable vehicle. It could be built "on the cheap" and they could claim it was a re-usable vehicle by reusing the capsule and its oms engines.
The crew can be carried up and down in a smaller, simplier, more reliable vehicle.
Human crews aren't being used to transport cargo back and forth to the ISS, when an unmanned launch can accomplish the same thing.
The CAIB did endorse using the shuttle to carry up the remaining pieces of the ISS which were designed to fit into the cargo bay; however, they're suggesting (in the strongest language short of saying that the shuttle needs to be grounded) that a replacement crew transport needs to be developed post-haste