Well I have the priveledge of having F-22's fly over my head at low altitude all day long. Real ones. Jet noise interrupts our meetings all the time...
You have to have the water. The environment of space, the radiation levels, is eventually lethal once you get outside of Earth's magnetosphere. Therefore, you must have shielding around the crew compartments; and, because you need water for the crew anyway, it's one of the more obvious choices for shielding material. The water could serve a quadruple purpose: radiation shielding, potable water, breathable oxygen, and hydrogen fuel for an ion / vasimir type engine; so, yes, "re-watering" would constitute both restocking supplies for the human crew and refueling. Note that because the shielding requirement never goes away (except in low Earth orbit), you would always carry much more water than you would consume in a trip. (also note that I'm assuming nuclear reactor for power)
Yeah, it's a lot of mass. I'm not discounting that.
The analogy of the sub is interesting; and is applicable here, I think. Sure the sub lasts for 30 years on one fueling. I've no doubt you could build a spacecraft to last that long as well. But, the sub does not stay at sea for 30 years. Periodically it returns to port for re-supply. They have to take on food, spare parts, other supplies, and crew replacments. The big issue with a Mars-Earth transport is that your port is low Earth orbit and your truck becomes a fairly large launch vehicle.
If we ever do this it will be a massive undertaking. There's no doubt about that.
Yeah, OK, it's not like it would be passing by a water rich planet every few months. Or that the ship would need massive radiation shields around the crew quarters, for which water is ideal.
Why don't you determine what your going to use it for, then contact the different manufacturers with your requirements, ask what they suggest for your application and budget. Then have them send you demo units. You can compare them, hands on, for a week or two. They may even send a rep by and walk you through using the scope.
That's crap. The containers used in the RTG's can withstand an explosion of the launch vehicle and then be recovered, more or less intact, from where they land. They're also hardened enough to survive re-entry if the vehicle doesn't make it to orbit. The fuel containers for any reactor being assembled on orbit would be of similar quality.
It bothers me that Aldrin is still quoting the year and a half transit time. The year and a half assumes chemical rockets and ignores technology that's available now, like ion engines. We won't be ready to do this for 30 to 50 years (maybe). If technologies under development today, such as VASIMIR, prove themselves in the next few decades, that transit time could be under 4 months (prediction based on VASIMIR propulsion at 12MW).
if it were to be a one-way mission, and there wasn't even a major plan for long-term survivability
I don't think that's what he has in mind. I believe the intention is certainly for the astronauts to survive; but, they would be on their own. The astronauts would have to become at least partially self-sufficient. Needed supplies / equipment could be dropped in advance and continuing needs could be supplied with occasional drops.
Yes, yes... And your original post made it sound as if you had to have the equivalent of a medical x-ray machine to generate an x-ray. I'm not suggesting that they're generating any kind of significant intensity; simply that it's easier to generate x-rays than you implied.
You can generate x-rays with significantly less than that (both voltage and current). Why do you think there's so much lead in a CRT, Hmmmm? You can generate hard (penetrating) x-rays with as little as 12 keV.
Air gets in the way, the electrons have to interact with the oxygen and nitrogen so would not be able to accelerate to the same energy as if in a vacuum.
Solution: move the Earth further from the Sun. We're going to have to do it eventually, to deal with solar expansion as the Sun ages. Might as well lay the ground work now... Also need to prepare the backup plan: Begin exploration and colonization of the Mars and the moons of the Jupiter and Saturn.
create renewable energy-powered, electromagnetic pulse (EMP)-protected microgrids that could provide electricity for critical infrastructure facilities in the event of a disaster
Ummm. Might they be referring to shielded backup generators? Can I have a $160,000 grant now too?
A sudden hailstorm looks like it would be a problem -- you'd lose a number of tubes. However, if you have time to respond... I would like to think the tubes are sturdier than they look. It does appears the tubes have endcaps not unlike the single pin flourescent tubes. A maintenance team could pull the tubes in advance of an approaching storm system and put them into protected storage, then re-insert them once the storm was past.
$6 billion is a drop in the bucket. Sounds like a lot of money to the guy on the street but on the grand scheme of thing it's too small to make a difference.
As to "helping with our financial bailout" Why would they? Why should they? The mess in the banking industry was created by the banking industry itself. Our government is handling it. If I were a foreign investor I would be looking to grab some bargins.
The cost of building and running the fab does not show up on their corporate books. AMD management can concentrate on the business of designing and marketing the chips and can avoid the fab issues (not entirely, but for the most part). The fab can potentially be operated at a higher utilization if it is not running solely AMD processors, which might improve profitability for the fab. AMD is maintaining a controlling interest in the company being spun off, so that they will be the priority customer.
Not really. With NASA, you get the lowest bidder doing the work or providing the parts. Problem is, since the competition is thin, the bidders all pad their estimate. It's a game of "Is this bid low enough or am I padding too much compared to company x". Add the fact that there are usually ways to request additional money for "cost increases." Once there are many companies all bidding on the same components and many of the components are being sold, the price should go down.
Actually, the cost for Windows is included, and how this works has been widely publicized.
A large OEM (like Dell and HP) pays about $50 per license. They get no media from Microsoft and create their own install package. The OEM also pays about $10 for the codec licenses. They offset this cost by installing the trialware (aka crapware) and links to software companies websites. For this they either charge, what is essentially, an advertising fee; or, they receive a cut of the sales on the purchased products.
When Dell builds a PC with Linux installed, it tends to cost a few dollars more than the Windows PC. They've provided a (reasonable in my opinion) explanation for why this is: The Linux install is low volume and get's treated as a non-standard build, or "special", in their system, which adds cost. In addition, although the OEM does not have to pay for the OS license, they also do not get any fees for installing trialware to offset the cost. Finally, if they are installing the codecs, the OEM is adding their cost to the price of the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I have the priveledge of having F-22's fly over my head at low altitude all day long. Real ones. Jet noise interrupts our meetings all the time...
You have to have the water. The environment of space, the radiation levels, is eventually lethal once you get outside of Earth's magnetosphere. Therefore, you must have shielding around the crew compartments; and, because you need water for the crew anyway, it's one of the more obvious choices for shielding material. The water could serve a quadruple purpose: radiation shielding, potable water, breathable oxygen, and hydrogen fuel for an ion / vasimir type engine; so, yes, "re-watering" would constitute both restocking supplies for the human crew and refueling. Note that because the shielding requirement never goes away (except in low Earth orbit), you would always carry much more water than you would consume in a trip. (also note that I'm assuming nuclear reactor for power)
Yeah, it's a lot of mass. I'm not discounting that.
The analogy of the sub is interesting; and is applicable here, I think. Sure the sub lasts for 30 years on one fueling. I've no doubt you could build a spacecraft to last that long as well. But, the sub does not stay at sea for 30 years. Periodically it returns to port for re-supply. They have to take on food, spare parts, other supplies, and crew replacments. The big issue with a Mars-Earth transport is that your port is low Earth orbit and your truck becomes a fairly large launch vehicle.
If we ever do this it will be a massive undertaking. There's no doubt about that.
It's an advanced trainer. It's a toy. (albeit a rich man's toy). What's the big deal -- he already owns several aircraft. This isn't even uncommon.
Now, if you told me he bought a couple of fully armed F22's, THAT would be news. (you may, of course, substitute your plane of choice for the F22)
Whatsthepoint
"Candy doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's candy" -- Charlie Bucket, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
If you can't see the analogy... We may not be able to save you.
Yeah, OK, it's not like it would be passing by a water rich planet every few months. Or that the ship would need massive radiation shields around the crew quarters, for which water is ideal.
Why don't you determine what your going to use it for, then contact the different manufacturers with your requirements, ask what they suggest for your application and budget. Then have them send you demo units. You can compare them, hands on, for a week or two. They may even send a rep by and walk you through using the scope.
That's crap. The containers used in the RTG's can withstand an explosion of the launch vehicle and then be recovered, more or less intact, from where they land. They're also hardened enough to survive re-entry if the vehicle doesn't make it to orbit. The fuel containers for any reactor being assembled on orbit would be of similar quality.
It bothers me that Aldrin is still quoting the year and a half transit time. The year and a half assumes chemical rockets and ignores technology that's available now, like ion engines. We won't be ready to do this for 30 to 50 years (maybe). If technologies under development today, such as VASIMIR, prove themselves in the next few decades, that transit time could be under 4 months (prediction based on VASIMIR propulsion at 12MW).
if it were to be a one-way mission, and there wasn't even a major plan for long-term survivability
I don't think that's what he has in mind. I believe the intention is certainly for the astronauts to survive; but, they would be on their own. The astronauts would have to become at least partially self-sufficient. Needed supplies / equipment could be dropped in advance and continuing needs could be supplied with occasional drops.
Yes, yes... And your original post made it sound as if you had to have the equivalent of a medical x-ray machine to generate an x-ray. I'm not suggesting that they're generating any kind of significant intensity; simply that it's easier to generate x-rays than you implied.
You can generate x-rays with significantly less than that (both voltage and current). Why do you think there's so much lead in a CRT, Hmmmm? You can generate hard (penetrating) x-rays with as little as 12 keV.
Air gets in the way, the electrons have to interact with the oxygen and nitrogen so would not be able to accelerate to the same energy as if in a vacuum.
Solution: move the Earth further from the Sun. We're going to have to do it eventually, to deal with solar expansion as the Sun ages. Might as well lay the ground work now... Also need to prepare the backup plan: Begin exploration and colonization of the Mars and the moons of the Jupiter and Saturn.
create renewable energy-powered, electromagnetic pulse (EMP)-protected microgrids that could provide electricity for critical infrastructure facilities in the event of a disaster
Ummm. Might they be referring to shielded backup generators? Can I have a $160,000 grant now too?
A sudden hailstorm looks like it would be a problem -- you'd lose a number of tubes. However, if you have time to respond... I would like to think the tubes are sturdier than they look. It does appears the tubes have endcaps not unlike the single pin flourescent tubes. A maintenance team could pull the tubes in advance of an approaching storm system and put them into protected storage, then re-insert them once the storm was past.
My mistake. I read the percentages incorrectly. I still maintain that a 45% ownership stake will still make them the first customer in line.
$6 billion is a drop in the bucket. Sounds like a lot of money to the guy on the street but on the grand scheme of thing it's too small to make a difference.
As to "helping with our financial bailout" Why would they? Why should they? The mess in the banking industry was created by the banking industry itself. Our government is handling it. If I were a foreign investor I would be looking to grab some bargins.
The cost of building and running the fab does not show up on their corporate books. AMD management can concentrate on the business of designing and marketing the chips and can avoid the fab issues (not entirely, but for the most part). The fab can potentially be operated at a higher utilization if it is not running solely AMD processors, which might improve profitability for the fab. AMD is maintaining a controlling interest in the company being spun off, so that they will be the priority customer.
wanna bet that the username and password that got him into the vpn in the first place is a valid username and password in the domain?
"multiple layers of security have prevented access to systems and data."
the fact is that the guy already had access to the systems. Were they not paying attention?
good point. I've been coding in .net all the time lately and have forgotten too much wrt my ansi c roots.
Dude, in the event of an if (disaster) you should always throw (OMFG)
And Vista Ultimate cost what? (hint: $278 @ newegg.com)
Not really. With NASA, you get the lowest bidder doing the work or providing the parts. Problem is, since the competition is thin, the bidders all pad their estimate. It's a game of "Is this bid low enough or am I padding too much compared to company x". Add the fact that there are usually ways to request additional money for "cost increases." Once there are many companies all bidding on the same components and many of the components are being sold, the price should go down.
Actually, the cost for Windows is included, and how this works has been widely publicized.
A large OEM (like Dell and HP) pays about $50 per license. They get no media from Microsoft and create their own install package. The OEM also pays about $10 for the codec licenses. They offset this cost by installing the trialware (aka crapware) and links to software companies websites. For this they either charge, what is essentially, an advertising fee; or, they receive a cut of the sales on the purchased products.
When Dell builds a PC with Linux installed, it tends to cost a few dollars more than the Windows PC. They've provided a (reasonable in my opinion) explanation for why this is: The Linux install is low volume and get's treated as a non-standard build, or "special", in their system, which adds cost. In addition, although the OEM does not have to pay for the OS license, they also do not get any fees for installing trialware to offset the cost. Finally, if they are installing the codecs, the OEM is adding their cost to the price of the computer.