Yes, the person who wrote the article clearly made a gross error there. Modern IC engines burn very nearly 100% of the fuel. Furthermore, even perfect combustion of gasoline would give you rought the same output greenhouse gases. Incomplete combustion just means more of them come out as hydrocarbons and less as CO2 + water.
If the manufacturers of the the device are making the claim you quoted, they are clearly either frauds or clueless. However, it might be the reporters error.
Changing the fuel composition might give you cleaner burning, but it's hard to imagine this would offset the extra gasoline required make up for the gross inefficiency of the electrolysis process. The fact that the hydrogen/oxygen itself is zero emission doesn't help, because you always put in more energy from gasoline than you got out of the hydrogen.
They have been doing fully automated dockings for a long time. Even the manned flights default to automatic docking. However, it isn't flawless. The previous Progress had to be docked by remote control, due to some failure of the automated system. Automatic docking isn't conceptually a hard problem (simple newtonian physics), but a lot of hardware does have to work right.
The collision with Mir mentioned by another poster was the result of a failed manual docking, FWIW.
Moreover the $20 million per flight may not even cover the whole cost of the mission (it's very difficult to get hard numbers, but a Soyuz booster launch alone sells for more than that, never mind the spacecraft)
It is very likely only 'profitable' in the sense that they are getting $20 million toward a mission they were going to fly anyway. Note that the ESA astronauts who fly on these flights are also paying customers. Americans currently ride free due to barter agreements, but that is set to end this year.
There are also persistent rumors that none of the current tourists have actually paid the full price. $20 million is the opening bid.
Actually, any near future mars 'spaceship' will look a lot like ISS or Mir. Most of the technology is there. New propulsion technology isn't required. Chemical rockets, or scaled up versions of existing electric propulsion systems can do the job just fine.
As long as you have a shelter for solar flares (which you can make with water and fuel that you are going to need anyway) radiation isn't a show stopper. Yes, your crew will take an above average lifetime dose, and expose themselves to increased risk of cancer in the long term. Compared to the risk of riding on existing launch vehicles, that's a minor point.
Huh ? Your claim that "the return trip always ignored" is completely bogus. Any serious mission study deals with ascent and return (well, a few people have proposed 1 way missions, but they tend to not be taken very seriously). If you haven't seen it discussed, it is because you are reading fluff pieces in the popular press, rather than the actual studies.
Getting off mars is harder than getting off the moon, but it's a lot easier than getting off earth. Like any other part of a mars mission, it presents technical challenges...
can somebody explain to me how the atmosphere on this moon can be water vapour based when it is so cold. Won't rapid condensation result..followed by freezing?
I don't see any numbers in the recent article, but given that it took a close pass of Cassini to detect, it should be clear that the atmosphere of Enceladus is something that in most other contexts would be considered a hard vacuum.
That is largely because of the maps. Most of the ETF maps were made with Q3 era system specs in mind. ETF should play slightly better than the equivalent maps in Q3F, because the engine has some improvements. ET maps are MUCH more complex, and q3 engine stuff really seems to bog down at a certian level of complexity.
I think you're missing the point. Equipment and resources that were available in the 60s and 70s is no longer around.
But in this particular case, it's really not far off.
The boosters and basic spacecraft exist, as does the docking system. A number of upper stages are also available, including the block DM, which was originally intended as a lunar upper stage, and is currently used for GEO launches on Proton and Zenit Sea Launch (OTOH, it has a less than stellar reliability record). So the development effort would essentially be hacking together existing parts, rather than breaking new ground.
I have no doubt if someone actually put the money on the table, the schedule would slip and the cost would rise (aerospace is just like software in that respect), but as a ballpack figure, it doesn't seem completely insane.
FWIW, a very similar mission profile was proposed a while back by Constellation Services International, see here: http://www.constellationservices.com/lunarexpresss msystem.html I don't know whether RSA just lifted the concept, or it is actually the same proposal being re-floated (or perhaps CSI lifted it from the Russians...)
Take this example. You run a fairly successful ecommerce site in a very competitive space. One of your competitors discovers you use this method and decides they don't want you to compete with them on Googe, Yahoo etc. They setup a script that bangs on your box once a day spoofing all the known bot IP addresses. After a while you will start to wonder why you aren't in the indexes any longer.
Eh no. For an ssh login to fail, you have to actually establish a TCP connection, which makes spoofing rather difficult. Not only do they have to spoof the IPs, but they have to convice the internet to route googles IPs to you. If they can do that, causing you to blackhole googlebot is the least of your worries.
If you were doing this on a stateless UDP protocol, that would be another matter.
If ssh is your primary access to the machine, it is almost certainly a good idea to make sure your own IPs are whitelisted, and of course you want to keep an eye on any process like this.
They had 2 fatal accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) and a number of *extremely* close calls. The reentry of Soyuz 5, and the first launch attempts of Soyuz 18 and Soyuz-T 10 come to mind. (the latter very much went KABOOM on the pad, the crew were only saved by the escape system, which pulled them away at about 20 Gs...)
Soyuz has less total fatalities than the shuttle, but it carries less people per flight, and has flown less flights.
The fact that the most serious Soyuz failures were early in the program is somewhat in its favor, but from a statistical point of view, it is pretty much a wash. Although the system is in many ways simpler and more robust than the shuttle, the recent Soyuz flights have had their share of problems. The people building and operating it have done an amazing job, but have a severely limited budget and a crumbling infrastructure.
So if you get a chance to ride either, you may as well jump on it:P
GLSV wouldn't make a very good ICBM, but if they wanted to weaponize that capability, it wouldn't take much work. However, they already have missiles with enough range to deter the other regional powers (Pakistan, China) and have no real reason to worry about the US, EU or Russia.
Developing space technology, OTOH, gives them national prestige, technical advancement, and the chance to profit from selling space services.
Re:What happens to Farts in weightlessness ???????
on
Space Blog
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
... I understand in space, they don't pressure the vessel to atmospheric 14.7 psi, so if the pressure is lower, the diffusion should take place at a much faster rate. Not to say it won't be noticed, though.
Actually, ISS, the space shuttle and soyuz all run at near sea level pressure. This allows a more direct comparison to ground based medical studies, eliminates the health problems associated with long term exposure to low pressure, as well as the fire risk from higher oxygen concentration which would be required. OTOH, it means that you need an extensive pre-breath bends before EVAs, and requires a more massive pressure vessel.
With no shower, no laundry facilities and 2+ hours of exercise required every day, ISS is most likely a smelly place, with or without farts.
Which would of course mean that SCO has used GCC-suited code stolen from the GNU community.
When I worked on a product that ran on SCO, we found a bug in their compiler that made it not work, their tech support reply was basicly "What, you are using the SCO compiler ? Use GCC instead. That's what we do." That doesn't mean they stole GCC of course, just that they downloaded it like everyone else.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/r7.htm The same basic design that launched the first ICBM, first satellite and first human into space is still launching humans, cargo and satellites. It will almost certainly serve well past it's 50th anniversary. Korolev would be shocked and a bit dissapointed, I imagine.
Has no fins etc because it is actively guided with attitude control engines, like most 'real' rockets are. Look at a Delta/Titan/Soyuz/Proton. No fins. The failure was due to the computer power connector comming undone.
If you had seen their previous 'lander' vehicles, they were even less rocket shaped, just a frame with some engines, tanks and electronics strapped on, and flew quite well (at low speed and altitude).
http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/sci/sol/experts/helen/page1.htm http://www.astronautix.com/astros/shar man.htm Helen Sharman won a contest to ride soyuz to Mir. It turned out that the contest operators didn't have the cash, but the russians sent her anyway. They weren't as broke at the time. She wasn't the first paid passenger either, that was a japanese journalist (http://www.astronautix.com/astros/akiyama.htm)
Note that you don't just get the lucky bottle cap and go. You get a lucky bottle cap, you go to star city for 6 months, train, learn russian and if you are fit enough and meet whatever other criteria, then you go.
Even if zero G doesn't turn you on, riding a hopped up 1950s ICBM into orbit has to be the best f***ing rollercoaster ride ever. Sign me up.
Ah the key "I can jump". The bike doesn't jump, you do, the bike just happens to follow. Now take that bike and run it full speed into a curb and don't jump.
You can ride a modern downhill bike full speed into a 6 inch curb and barely even notice.
To get around copyright issues, the news poster sends an email to the web site maintainer. "We are about to post your page on slashdot... do you give us permission to cache it ?" Or is that blackmail ?:-P
The little blurb on the web sit about how 'ordinary' wheel bearings couldn't take the stress of a banked track is 100% bovine excrement. Plenty of people drive stock and near stock vehicles on the track at speed for long periods of time. Even cheap ones like Datsun 510s and Honda accords.
Now it might be that the 20 year old delorean bearing were already going bad, but you'd think that if they actually wanted to demo the vehicle, they would have done some informal testing to make sure that it was roadworthy. Which leads us to the obvious conclusion that they *didn't* want to demo the vehicle, they only want to make it look like they could. Gee, why would nice Mr. Tilly do that ?
The whole delorean thing is funny too. Why use a rare, expensive collecter car to demo your technology ? A $500 ford escort would do just as well, and you could zip over the local NAPA autoparts, who would have your wheel bearings in stock, and you could swap them out in a couple of hours. OK, maybe the $500 escort is too ugly for publicity purposes. How about a $5000 Honda ? Maybe all that stainless steel is needed to sheild the dilithium crystals.
It ain't much, but you can see one on the lower right, here
http://www.google.com/plex/index.html of course, that could be any old rack full of telco stuff.
In this specific case, it wasn't intended as a back door. This was a built in account so the
server process could attach to it's own security
database. Obviously there are much better was
of doing this, but it was just one of many examples of really bad program design. And bad implementation. And people who programmed in an evironment where security was barely even given lip service.
This back door was probably made with managment
knowledge and aproval.
(I don't know for sure. I worked for the interbase
group after this was introduced, and was not aware
of it while I worked there)
You might want to check one of
These out. They have neat movies of it dusting 'vetts
and ferraries in a drag race
Of course if bought a 65 mustang for $4K and
spent the other $76K on the the motor, it
ought to be able to do 0-60 in well under 4 sec.
;-)
http://www.google.com/search?q=DeCSS+source+download+&btnG=G oogle+Search
Is slashdot breaking the law by allowing
this link to be published ?
Did I break the law by composing the query ?
Did google break the law by giving results to it ?
If I run the query, and it return's no results,
then no-one has broken the law. But if later it
does return the location of the forbidden program,
does the previously published query suddenly become illegal ? And become legal again if
the query stops returning resulsts ?
Does Mr. Kaplan smoke crack ?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the person who wrote the article clearly made a gross error there. Modern IC engines burn very nearly 100% of the fuel. Furthermore, even perfect combustion of gasoline would give you rought the same output greenhouse gases. Incomplete combustion just means more of them come out as hydrocarbons and less as CO2 + water.
If the manufacturers of the the device are making the claim you quoted, they are clearly either frauds or clueless. However, it might be the reporters error.
Changing the fuel composition might give you cleaner burning, but it's hard to imagine this would offset the extra gasoline required make up for the gross inefficiency of the electrolysis process. The fact that the hydrogen/oxygen itself is zero emission doesn't help, because you always put in more energy from gasoline than you got out of the hydrogen.
They have been doing fully automated dockings for a long time. Even the manned flights default to automatic docking. However, it isn't flawless. The previous Progress had to be docked by remote control, due to some failure of the automated system. Automatic docking isn't conceptually a hard problem (simple newtonian physics), but a lot of hardware does have to work right.
The collision with Mir mentioned by another poster was the result of a failed manual docking, FWIW.
Moreover the $20 million per flight may not even cover the whole cost of the mission (it's very difficult to get hard numbers, but a Soyuz booster launch alone sells for more than that, never mind the spacecraft)
It is very likely only 'profitable' in the sense that they are getting $20 million toward a mission they were going to fly anyway. Note that the ESA astronauts who fly on these flights are also paying customers. Americans currently ride free due to barter agreements, but that is set to end this year.
There are also persistent rumors that none of the current tourists have actually paid the full price. $20 million is the opening bid.
Actually, any near future mars 'spaceship' will look a lot like ISS or Mir. Most of the technology is there. New propulsion technology isn't required. Chemical rockets, or scaled up versions of existing electric propulsion systems can do the job just fine.
As long as you have a shelter for solar flares (which you can make with water and fuel that you are going to need anyway) radiation isn't a show stopper. Yes, your crew will take an above average lifetime dose, and expose themselves to increased risk of cancer in the long term. Compared to the risk of riding on existing launch vehicles, that's a minor point.
Huh ? Your claim that "the return trip always ignored" is completely bogus. Any serious mission study deals with ascent and return (well, a few people have proposed 1 way missions, but they tend to not be taken very seriously). If you haven't seen it discussed, it is because you are reading fluff pieces in the popular press, rather than the actual studies.
Getting off mars is harder than getting off the moon, but it's a lot easier than getting off earth. Like any other part of a mars mission, it presents technical challenges...
I don't see any numbers in the recent article, but given that it took a close pass of Cassini to detect, it should be clear that the atmosphere of Enceladus is something that in most other contexts would be considered a hard vacuum.
Most ablative reentry sheilds are pretty close to 'plastic' too (epoxy resin of some kind). There are reports that the Chinese have used wood...
That is largely because of the maps. Most of the ETF maps were made with Q3 era system specs in mind. ETF should play slightly better than the equivalent maps in Q3F, because the engine has some improvements. ET maps are MUCH more complex, and q3 engine stuff really seems to bog down at a certian level of complexity.
The boosters and basic spacecraft exist, as does the docking system. A number of upper stages are also available, including the block DM, which was originally intended as a lunar upper stage, and is currently used for GEO launches on Proton and Zenit Sea Launch (OTOH, it has a less than stellar reliability record). So the development effort would essentially be hacking together existing parts, rather than breaking new ground.
I have no doubt if someone actually put the money on the table, the schedule would slip and the cost would rise (aerospace is just like software in that respect), but as a ballpack figure, it doesn't seem completely insane.
FWIW, a very similar mission profile was proposed a while back by Constellation Services International, see here: http://www.constellationservices.com/lunarexpresss msystem.html I don't know whether RSA just lifted the concept, or it is actually the same proposal being re-floated (or perhaps CSI lifted it from the Russians...)
They had 2 fatal accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) and a number of *extremely* close calls. The reentry of Soyuz 5, and the first launch attempts of Soyuz 18 and Soyuz-T 10 come to mind. (the latter very much went KABOOM on the pad, the crew were only saved by the escape system, which pulled them away at about 20 Gs...)
:P
Soyuz has less total fatalities than the shuttle, but it carries less people per flight, and has flown less flights.
The fact that the most serious Soyuz failures were early in the program is somewhat in its favor, but from a statistical point of view, it is pretty much a wash. Although the system is in many ways simpler and more robust than the shuttle, the recent Soyuz flights have had their share of problems. The people building and operating it have done an amazing job, but have a severely limited budget and a crumbling infrastructure.
So if you get a chance to ride either, you may as well jump on it
GLSV wouldn't make a very good ICBM, but if they wanted to weaponize that capability, it wouldn't take much work. However, they already have missiles with enough range to deter the other regional powers (Pakistan, China) and have no real reason to worry about the US, EU or Russia.
Developing space technology, OTOH, gives them national prestige, technical advancement, and the chance to profit from selling space services.
I understand in space, they don't pressure the vessel to atmospheric 14.7 psi, so if the pressure is lower, the diffusion should take place at a much faster rate. Not to say it won't be noticed, though.
Actually, ISS, the space shuttle and soyuz all run at near sea level pressure. This allows a more direct comparison to ground based medical studies, eliminates the health problems associated with long term exposure to low pressure, as well as the fire risk from higher oxygen concentration which would be required. OTOH, it means that you need an extensive pre-breath bends before EVAs, and requires a more massive pressure vessel.
With no shower, no laundry facilities and 2+ hours of exercise required every day, ISS is most likely a smelly place, with or without farts.
Which would of course mean that SCO has used GCC-suited code stolen from the GNU community.
When I worked on a product that ran on SCO, we found a bug in their compiler that made it not work, their tech support reply was basicly "What, you are using the SCO compiler ? Use GCC instead. That's what we do." That doesn't mean they stole GCC of course, just that they downloaded it like everyone else.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/r7.htm The same basic design that launched the first ICBM, first satellite and first human into space is still launching humans, cargo and satellites. It will almost certainly serve well past it's 50th anniversary. Korolev would be shocked and a bit dissapointed, I imagine.
Has no fins etc because it is actively guided with attitude control engines, like most 'real' rockets are. Look at a Delta/Titan/Soyuz/Proton. No fins. The failure was due to the computer power connector comming undone.
If you had seen their previous 'lander' vehicles, they were even less rocket shaped, just a frame with some engines, tanks and electronics strapped on, and flew quite well (at low speed and altitude).
http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/sci/sol/experts/helen /page1.htmr man.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/astros/sha
Helen Sharman won a contest to ride soyuz to Mir. It turned out that the contest operators didn't have the cash, but the russians sent her anyway. They weren't as broke at the time. She wasn't the first paid passenger either, that was a japanese journalist (http://www.astronautix.com/astros/akiyama.htm)
Note that you don't just get the lucky bottle cap and go. You get a lucky bottle cap, you go to star city for 6 months, train, learn russian and if you are fit enough and meet whatever other criteria, then you go.
Even if zero G doesn't turn you on, riding a hopped up 1950s ICBM into orbit has to be the best f***ing rollercoaster ride ever. Sign me up.
You can ride a modern downhill bike full speed into a 6 inch curb and barely even notice.
To get around copyright issues, the news poster sends an email to the web site maintainer. "We are about to post your page on slashdot... do you give us permission to cache it ?" :-P
Or is that blackmail ?
The little blurb on the web sit about how 'ordinary' wheel bearings couldn't take the stress of a banked track is 100% bovine excrement. Plenty of people drive stock and near stock vehicles on the track at speed for long periods of time. Even cheap ones like Datsun 510s and Honda accords.
Now it might be that the 20 year old delorean bearing were already going bad, but you'd think that if they actually wanted to demo the vehicle, they would have done some informal testing to make sure that it was roadworthy. Which leads us to the obvious conclusion that they *didn't* want to demo the vehicle, they only want to make it look like they could. Gee, why would nice Mr. Tilly do that ?
The whole delorean thing is funny too. Why use a rare, expensive collecter car to demo your technology ? A $500 ford escort would do just as well, and you could zip over the local NAPA autoparts, who would have your wheel bearings in stock, and you could swap them out in a couple of hours. OK, maybe the $500 escort is too ugly for publicity purposes. How about a $5000 Honda ? Maybe all that stainless steel is needed to sheild the dilithium crystals.
It ain't much, but you can see one on the lower right, here
http://www.google.com/plex/index.html
of course, that could be any old rack full of telco stuff.
http://64.55.62.15/home.nfs?a=ibphoenix&s=97925959 7:1&page=starkey
In this specific case, it wasn't intended as a back door. This was a built in account so the server process could attach to it's own security database. Obviously there are much better was of doing this, but it was just one of many examples of really bad program design. And bad implementation. And people who programmed in an evironment where security was barely even given lip service. This back door was probably made with managment knowledge and aproval. (I don't know for sure. I worked for the interbase group after this was introduced, and was not aware of it while I worked there)
You might want to check one of
These out. They have neat movies of it dusting 'vetts
and ferraries in a drag race
Of course if bought a 65 mustang for $4K and
spent the other $76K on the the motor, it
ought to be able to do 0-60 in well under 4 sec.
;-)
http://www .google.com/search?q=DeCSS+source+download+&btnG=G oogle+Search
Is slashdot breaking the law by allowing this link to be published ?
Did I break the law by composing the query ?
Did google break the law by giving results to it ?
If I run the query, and it return's no results, then no-one has broken the law. But if later it does return the location of the forbidden program, does the previously published query suddenly become illegal ? And become legal again if the query stops returning resulsts ?
Does Mr. Kaplan smoke crack ?