From what I have read, I understood that Hubble often has to waste a proportion of its observation time when the Earth is in the way. Hubble is in LEO, and Earth represents a huge propotion of the viewable hemisphere. At Lagrange, the % of sky taken by the moon/Earth is far less - even if they get in the way, they are not in the way for so long. Also much less background radiation generally - a much better place to place ultra-sensitive instruments.
Anyway, Hubble cannot re-target that quickly - it takes time to fine tune & home in on a target. If it is a long observation, more than can be done in half an orbit, and Earth gets in the way, sometimes Hubble is not re-targeted onto a new objective, but left as-is until the target comes around in the next orbit.
There are plenty of ways of spending $300m+ and saving a lot more lifes than those threatened by Hubble reentry - which has something like a 1 in 800 chance of hitting somebody, if I remember right - anyone confirm the exact figure? Thus:
$300m+ saves 1/800 th of a life.
Even if you spent that on bottom end US health or social care, you will probably save/improve 100's or 1000's of lifes.
It is true there are nasty regimes in Africa - but there are also some democracies and agencies who would make good use of a "gift" of $300m worth of AIDS drugs. Then again, the drug companies should not be so greedy and charge so much - but thats another story..
Even if the $300m+ is spent on a mission to deorbit, it could fail for some reason anyway - another risk% to factor into the equation.
Anyway it wont happen like that, because NASA politically cannot afford to be seen taking even small risks with public safety - whatever the actual cold logic of the situation really is..
I don't know if I'm blurring the line between sci-fi and reality.. Isnt that why slashdot exists?
For id purposes such as system access, yes one of the new biometric systems would suffice. Even a chipped card & password probably would too. Interesting point about kidnaps - I had forgotton about that - although I have visited mexico & columbia.. But would an ID chip be a lot of help? they only work at close range, and surely all the kidnapper would have to do is wrap the arm in tin foil. (like his hat).
If he was chipping himself as a precursor to saying "Ive done it, so this is ok to do on criminals too", that is the start of a very slippery slope..
I believe that Hubble should probably be serviced, but the equation is pretty marginal, I think. If it wasnt for the fact that we (think we) have to go back up and fit retros anyway, (and that the upgrade CCDs etc have been built) I would be for just running it until it stopped working & putting the money into new scopes, maybe a 2nd UV/Visable capable one to join the JWT.
Hubble is in the wrong place - it is inoperable for half the time, since the earth blocks its view as it orbits - much better to place it the Lagrange point like the JWT. Modern space scopes can have much bigger lightweight segmented mirrors - again like JWT. Hubble is also just plain old - all the bits are starting to wear out, take micrometeor hits, and so on. Manned repairs also make no sense whatsoever, at the current (stupid) shuttle mission costs.
Hubble has of course been great sucess in many ways, but technology has moved on since the late 70's when it was concieved.
Personally I wonder if it is even worth spending $300m+ just for a "safe deorbit" - its the old argument - ie: that money spent AIDS drugs for Africa would save many more lifes than are threatened by Hubble reentry..
I would agree that Mars is more interesting than the moon in many ways, but I still think that we should go to the moon first.
If there is a major accident, an astronaut can get back to a tried-and-tested apollo style lunar capsule, launch pretty much immediately and get back home in a few days.
On mars, you only have fast(ish) routes back to earth every 18 months (assuming something close to current rocket tech) with a 6 month transit time. A moon base will also give NASA time to invent & test new vehicles for landing men on, surviving on, then returning from another world with reasonable safety - remember they have not built such vehicles for over 30 years.
Zubrins plan for Mars is tempting, but NASAs manned program is really shaky at the moment post columbia - if they tried that direct-to-mars route & had a major catastrophe, which would be very possible given all the unknowns, they would be in political hot water. An easier & sucsessful moon mission would give them the political confidence to carry on to mars, and develop a range of useful technologies in the meantime.
I personally think that the X-prize is an interesting route - when you think about it it was *enthusiasts* that got men on the moon quickly and safely - not the technocrats/beaurocrats that currently run NASA. The timescale for Apollo development was amazing, now we look back. Think of those early fanatical engineers, like von braun.. I think that a series of objectives, ie - first orbit, orbital hotel, ending with prizes for the first bases on the moon/mars, could acheieve far more for much much less public money - maybe operating in tandem with NASA agencies. If fact it seems NASA is starting to think this way too, and offer its own X-prize..
In the meantime, robotic probes can test for bacteria before humans land and contaminate the planet..
(Some of the obove was a paste from an earlier post of mine..)
Even with current technology, the worlds best selling electric car, the Gem, runs at a cost of about 0.25p/mile - compared to 30p/mile for a typical petrol car. (BBC news)
Just needs a bit of a push to get the milage between charges up. My own idea is that batteries be "leased" from garages, so that you drive into a garage and swap for a fully charged one instantly, for some sort of fee. No new technology needed for that, just some basic mechanics.
But electricity comes from fossil fuels you say? The UK has enough offshore wind-power to generate all our energy needs several times over - just use spare off-peak power to charge our cars up. New wind-power farms can supply electricity at 0.03/kw/hour - pretty cheap. (British Wind Energy Association page)
Once people get off the treadmill of buying new petrol cars and realise how cheap electric cars can be, volumes go up and the prices will drop..
I would agree with some of your points, but probably the strongest argument for the moon is simply that it is so close.
If there is a major accident, an astronaut can get back to a tried-and-tested apollo style lunar capsule, launch pretty much immediately and get back home in a few days.
On mars, you only have fast(ish) routes back to earth every 18 months (assuming something close to current rocket tech) with a 6 month transit time. A moon base will also give NASA time to invent new vehicles for landing men on, surviving on, then returning from another world with reasonable safety - remember they have not built such vehicles for over 30 years.
Zubrins plan for Mars is tempting, but NASAs manned program is really shaky at the moment post columbia - if they tried that direct-to-mars route & had a major catastrophe, which would be very possible given all the unknowns, they would be in political hot water. An easier & sucsessful moon mission would give them the political confidence to carry on to mars, and develop a range of useful technologies in the meantime.
I personally think that the X-prize is an interesting route - when you think about it it was *enthusiasts* that got men on the moon quickly and safely - the timescale for Apollo development was amazing, now we look back. Think of those early fanatical engineers, like van braun.. I think that a series of objectives, ending with prizes for the first hotels on the moon/mars, could acheieve far more for much much less public money - maybe operating in tandem with NASA agencies. If fact it seems NASA is starting to think this way too, and offer its own X-prize..
"Ok, roger that huston, we are descending the crater wall to return to Mobile Exploration Habitat and.. heck, where is it? Buzz, did you put the handbrake on?"
If I recall, the transmitter on Voyager-2 only has 20 watts of power available as it heads towards the heliopause, well beyond Pluto. Its RTG have degenerated over 30 years. The Deep Space Network has to pick up and decode that signal from a distance of around 100 AU..
It has recently come to my notice that your code includes thousands of lines of code stolen from SCOunix, including my well-known malloc routine, and such classic code as "a=0;" (US pat:1269169,"Assignment of null to a variable").
How could you! From now on, every user of FreeDOS [(C)(TM) SCO (patent pending)] is required to buy an SCO end user license, a snip at $699.
I remember reading an old magazine 60's("Radio Constructor") that featured a solution to this- a guy had a circular lawn & wanted to automatically mow it - how did he do it? Complex electronics? no. He put a large oil drum in the center, and attatched the petrol mower by a long rope with a lenth the radius of the circle, wound around the drum. The mower is started, and as it unwinds mows a spiral pattern - then mows another spiral coming in! Bloke goes and has beer, and comes back just in time to switch the mower off as it hits the center.
The diameter of the drum should be a bit less than the width of the mowers rotors..
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine, a 3d engine which can render 20 polygons a minute!
From what I have read, I understood that Hubble often has to waste a proportion of its observation time when the Earth is in the way. Hubble is in LEO, and Earth represents a huge propotion of the viewable hemisphere. At Lagrange, the % of sky taken by the moon/Earth is far less - even if they get in the way, they are not in the way for so long. Also much less background radiation generally - a much better place to place ultra-sensitive instruments.
Anyway, Hubble cannot re-target that quickly - it takes time to fine tune & home in on a target. If it is a long observation, more than can be done in half an orbit, and Earth gets in the way, sometimes Hubble is not re-targeted onto a new objective, but left as-is until the target comes around in the next orbit.
Can anyone confirm this?
Its an old-fashioned cost/risk equation.
There are plenty of ways of spending $300m+ and saving a lot more lifes than those threatened by Hubble reentry - which has something like a 1 in 800 chance of hitting somebody, if I remember right - anyone confirm the exact figure? Thus:
$300m+ saves 1/800 th of a life.
Even if you spent that on bottom end US health or social care, you will probably save/improve 100's or 1000's of lifes.
It is true there are nasty regimes in Africa - but there are also some democracies and agencies who would make good use of a "gift" of $300m worth of AIDS drugs. Then again, the drug companies should not be so greedy and charge so much - but thats another story..
Even if the $300m+ is spent on a mission to deorbit, it could fail for some reason anyway - another risk% to factor into the equation.
Anyway it wont happen like that, because NASA politically cannot afford to be seen taking even small risks with public safety - whatever the actual cold logic of the situation really is..
I don't know if I'm blurring the line between sci-fi and reality..
Isnt that why slashdot exists?
For id purposes such as system access, yes one of the new biometric systems would suffice. Even a chipped card & password probably would too. Interesting point about kidnaps - I had forgotton about that - although I have visited mexico & columbia.. But would an ID chip be a lot of help? they only work at close range, and surely all the kidnapper would have to do is wrap the arm in tin foil. (like his hat).
If he was chipping himself as a precursor to saying "Ive done it, so this is ok to do on criminals too", that is the start of a very slippery slope..
Oh, and I think you mean "-1 groan"..
This guy really does have a chip on his shoulder..
(ok ok arm, its close..)
Seriously though, is there really any justification for this? Is this not something that can be achieved by other, less obtrusive methods?
I believe that Hubble should probably be serviced, but the equation is pretty marginal, I think. If it wasnt for the fact that we (think we) have to go back up and fit retros anyway, (and that the upgrade CCDs etc have been built) I would be for just running it until it stopped working & putting the money into new scopes, maybe a 2nd UV/Visable capable one to join the JWT.
Hubble is in the wrong place - it is inoperable for half the time, since the earth blocks its view as it orbits - much better to place it the Lagrange point like the JWT. Modern space scopes can have much bigger lightweight segmented mirrors - again like JWT. Hubble is also just plain old - all the bits are starting to wear out, take micrometeor hits, and so on. Manned repairs also make no sense whatsoever, at the current (stupid) shuttle mission costs.
Hubble has of course been great sucess in many ways, but technology has moved on since the late 70's when it was concieved.
Personally I wonder if it is even worth spending $300m+ just for a "safe deorbit" - its the old argument - ie: that money spent AIDS drugs for Africa would save many more lifes than are threatened by Hubble reentry..
I would agree that Mars is more interesting than the moon in many ways, but I still think that we should go to the moon first.
If there is a major accident, an astronaut can get back to a tried-and-tested apollo style lunar capsule, launch pretty much immediately and get back home in a few days.
On mars, you only have fast(ish) routes back to earth every 18 months (assuming something close to current rocket tech) with a 6 month transit time. A moon base will also give NASA time to invent & test new vehicles for landing men on, surviving on, then returning from another world with reasonable safety - remember they have not built such vehicles for over 30 years.
Zubrins plan for Mars is tempting, but NASAs manned program is really shaky at the moment post columbia - if they tried that direct-to-mars route & had a major catastrophe, which would be very possible given all the unknowns, they would be in political hot water. An easier & sucsessful moon mission would give them the political confidence to carry on to mars, and develop a range of useful technologies in the meantime.
I personally think that the X-prize is an interesting route - when you think about it it was *enthusiasts* that got men on the moon quickly and safely - not the technocrats/beaurocrats that currently run NASA. The timescale for Apollo development was amazing, now we look back. Think of those early fanatical engineers, like von braun.. I think that a series of objectives, ie - first orbit, orbital hotel, ending with prizes for the first bases on the moon/mars, could acheieve far more for much much less public money - maybe operating in tandem with NASA agencies. If fact it seems NASA is starting to think this way too, and offer its own X-prize..
In the meantime, robotic probes can test for bacteria before humans land and contaminate the planet..
(Some of the obove was a paste from an earlier post of mine..)
In Soviet Germany, the wall breaks YOU!
All your demos are belong to us!
Just one leetle musical.
Its only waafer thin..
(explodes)
Possible solutions:-
1)The Linux SMS Cryptophone open source project. Encrypts voice/SMS, can anonomise the phone..
Anyone?
2) Ask people to flood the network with meaningless keywords to make it inoperable - aka the spammers solutions to baysean filters..
The main problem is public complacency to human rights - Orwells 1984 should be compulsory reading in every school..
Yeh, it was a *joke*, people..
Anyway you could have it in your jacket pocket?
And 2 swallows could carry a coconut, as long as they strung a bit of twine between them..
"We couldn't come up with something using the Walkman brand until it survived the 1 meter (3 ft 3.37 in) drop test,"
Damn it, I'm over 1 meter tall, guess I'll have to wait for the next model..
Yes.
Even with current technology, the worlds best selling electric car, the Gem, runs at a cost of about 0.25p/mile - compared to 30p/mile for a typical petrol car. (BBC news)
Just needs a bit of a push to get the milage between charges up. My own idea is that batteries be "leased" from garages, so that you drive into a garage and swap for a fully charged one instantly, for some sort of fee. No new technology needed for that, just some basic mechanics.
But electricity comes from fossil fuels you say? The UK has enough offshore wind-power to generate all our energy needs several times over - just use spare off-peak power to charge our cars up. New wind-power farms can supply electricity at 0.03/kw/hour - pretty cheap. (British Wind Energy Association page)
Once people get off the treadmill of buying new petrol cars and realise how cheap electric cars can be, volumes go up and the prices will drop..
It all makes sense - doesnt it?
I would agree with some of your points, but probably the strongest argument for the moon is simply that it is so close.
If there is a major accident, an astronaut can get back to a tried-and-tested apollo style lunar capsule, launch pretty much immediately and get back home in a few days.
On mars, you only have fast(ish) routes back to earth every 18 months (assuming something close to current rocket tech) with a 6 month transit time. A moon base will also give NASA time to invent new vehicles for landing men on, surviving on, then returning from another world with reasonable safety - remember they have not built such vehicles for over 30 years.
Zubrins plan for Mars is tempting, but NASAs manned program is really shaky at the moment post columbia - if they tried that direct-to-mars route & had a major catastrophe, which would be very possible given all the unknowns, they would be in political hot water. An easier & sucsessful moon mission would give them the political confidence to carry on to mars, and develop a range of useful technologies in the meantime.
I personally think that the X-prize is an interesting route - when you think about it it was *enthusiasts* that got men on the moon quickly and safely - the timescale for Apollo development was amazing, now we look back. Think of those early fanatical engineers, like van braun.. I think that a series of objectives, ending with prizes for the first hotels on the moon/mars, could acheieve far more for much much less public money - maybe operating in tandem with NASA agencies. If fact it seems NASA is starting to think this way too, and offer its own X-prize..
"Ok, roger that huston, we are descending the crater wall to return to Mobile Exploration Habitat and.. heck, where is it? Buzz, did you put the handbrake on?"
Plutonium is evil down here on earth, but in space it is the only way to fuel a mission like this, at this time at least.
The point is that, here on earth, there is now a wealth of clean energy options available, it just needs the will to exploit themm..
If I recall, the transmitter on Voyager-2 only has 20 watts of power available as it heads towards the heliopause, well beyond Pluto. Its RTG have degenerated over 30 years. The Deep Space Network has to pick up and decode that signal from a distance of around 100 AU..
>0.915 Kg/day * 365.26 days/year * 7 years = 2340 Kg of Oil
And of course you will have to carry your own Oxygen too.
At this distance, nuclear does seem to be the only option, be it RTG as used here, or the reactors being considered for JIMO..
Dear FreeDOS community,
It has recently come to my notice that your code includes thousands of lines of code stolen from SCOunix, including my well-known malloc routine, and such classic code as "a=0;" (US pat:1269169,"Assignment of null to a variable").
How could you! From now on, every user of FreeDOS [(C)(TM) SCO (patent pending)] is required to buy an SCO end user license, a snip at $699.
Yours lovingly
Darl McBride
Look what happens when you search google for the keyword "gmail" - this site comes up third!
http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
Good on google for not censoring it, Cant imagine MS would allow that..
I remember reading an old magazine 60's("Radio Constructor") that featured a solution to this- a guy had a circular lawn & wanted to automatically mow it - how did he do it? Complex electronics? no. He put a large oil drum in the center, and attatched the petrol mower by a long rope with a lenth the radius of the circle, wound around the drum. The mower is started, and as it unwinds mows a spiral pattern - then mows another spiral coming in! Bloke goes and has beer, and comes back just in time to switch the mower off as it hits the center.
:-)
The diameter of the drum should be a bit less than the width of the mowers rotors..
Or, just buy a goat..
But just imagine a..
Singularities Make Me Nervous
Men wearing corsets make me nervous..
It was you, wasnt it?