Last year the 'problem' was that the Orion spacecraft was too heavy, and NASA was criticized on this forum. That was quickly and quietly solved, though the solution was not as widely reported inn the press. Ares I will use the largest solid rocket motor ever fired. Let the engineers work. If they can launch a space shuttle 120x using motors only 20% smaller, I think they can get the larger one working safely without the oversight of the New York Times.
My guess is this - the "common core system" designed by Honeywell
The 787 common core system is designed by Smith's Areospace, not Honeywell. Honeywell performed so badly on the 777 program that they were relegated to the 2nd tier. I have heard that their FMS is late for the 787 as well.
I have been using Qt for the last 4 months and come to the same conclusion. Many of the Qt classes don't destruct properly. The toolkit is far too reliant on dynamic allocation, which is S-L-O-W and error prone. It also relies far too much on inheritance rather than composition. It doesn't use the c++ stdlib. Why QString instead of std::string? I found Qthread and friends to be more difficult to use and have fewer useful features than simple pthreads. The slot and signal event mechanism is archaic and disgusting. Templated slots and signals have been around for years. The horse is out of the barn, but the world would be better off without C++ and with more emphasis put on good C design.
If this is a truly an international disgrace and a great launch to science why don't ESA or the Russians launch it? They have the vehicles. I personally am counting the days when they deorbit ISS and move on to project Constellation.
Russia is building a spaceport in the far east because Kazakhstan is weary of toxic Proton launcher first stages crashing in their territory. Proton's are loaded with UDMH, a dangerous carcinogen, and Nitrogen Tetroxide, a highly concentrated acid. Central Asia is strewn with spent first stages of Protons and Soyuz. Like Baikonur the new spaceport would be located above 45 deg N, which requires increased rocket performance to launch most payloads compared to lower latitude launch sites like Cape Canaveral or Kourou. The high (52deg) inclination of the ISS is a compromise for the Russian launch site. As a result there are fewer launch opportunities for the shuttle. By the way, Johnson Space Center is not a launch site. Perhaps your are referring to Vandenberg AFB in California.
If slashdot thinks this story is newsworthy they should also post one about the new Chinese launch site on Hainan Island.
I am glad ITT won. I worked a contract on Lockmart's effort. It was one of the worst large projects I have ever seen. It was a C++/AIX effort and managed by pinheads like something out of the 1950's. For what the software does it was horrendously complex. Because the government is unwilling to retrain the air traffic controllers the system has an bizarre anachronistic GUI. They actually worked hard to reimplement the interface feature for bizarre feature. It is no great comfort that the US depends on systems like this for air safety.
The materials are probably mostly like variety mafic rocks with a larger crystal size, like Gabbro or Dacite. Being closer to the sun they should also contain more refractory oxides like TiO or Mg0 and maybe sulfides like FeS. You mine these rocks and bring them to earth temperatures and they act just like earth rocks. The mining on Venus is probably a lot worse than on earth because there is no water circulation to extract and concentrate metal ores from host rock. But who really knows?
Wouldn't the rover just beam back "It's hot and everything's melted" over and over lol. If I remember correctly, there's no significant features to even study. You can't have mountains and ancient, dried up rivers and caves when everything's that hot. Mars is far more interesting.
It's hot and nothing is melted. On earth the melting point of rock is lowered by the amount of water they contain. Water acts as a flux. On Venus where the climate is intensely hot and dry, crustal rocks melt at a very high temperature and are very strong. They create some pretty wild landforms (scarps, cliffs...) as a result.
This or this don't seem so boring to me. The Maxwell Montes are higher than the Himalayas. With adiababic cooling their tops will be hundreds of degrees cooler than the planetary mean. Also, with all of the volcanism and mobile lava flows you can expect there to be some amazing lava rivers and lava tube caves.
J2ME is very different from desktop Java. It's one of the oldest APIs for handheld devices around, and there is a lot of stuff written for it already - tons of games [midlet-review.com], instant messengers [bombus-im.org], e-mail clients [movamail.com], and lots of other stuff. GMail Mobile [google.com] is a J2ME application, and so is Opera Mini [operamini.com] (granted, the latter not really needed on an iPhone or a decent smartphone, but priceless on plain Java-enabled mobiles like my Sagem my301).
Uh huh. Like the parent said, "no really compelling Java apps." Same goes for C#.
J2ME application should have native L&F on any implementation, and be fully resolution-independent.
You mean like any other competently written cross platform API?
The Russians launched a small habitation module and a propulsion module. The US shuttle the other 23 of 28 modules so far. The name ISS was needlessly gratuitous. The old name "Space Station Freedom" should have been retained, and a Russian place on it revoked.
Sad that Slashdot chooses to be relentlessly negative about NASA, while touting the lilliputian efforts of Russia and China. The STS-120 repair mission on the ISS I saw last week was about the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Russia or China won't be able to build something like that for 50 years! NASA deserves a party.
In a decade, China's economy will be bigger than United States, that is for sure.
The growth differential between the US and China is 6-7%. There is general agreement that China this differential will shrink not grow. The Chinese economy is currently 1/6 the size of the US: $2G vs. $13G. Where do you get your math?
My point is that America must not get behind.
I just watched a US astronaut conduct the most amazing repair mission ever attempted on our 1000000lb space station. China has launched 2 short space missions since 2003 and won't launch a 3rd until 2008. I don't think we need to worry. China is as far from a manned mission to the moon as the US is from a manned mission to Mars.
American flying wings, well take a look at the earodynamics of a mig 29 it can tilt backwards in flight.
Only a fool would suggest that a Mig 29 makes anything but a fine target for a front line American fighter.
Oh and their space airplane first space flight was radio controlled inlcuded the landing. Imagine the space shuttle did no human no risk cargo shipping, hmmmm.
The shuttle is capable of flying completely automated. Rumor has it that Buran fly with 4 tons of lead acid car batteries because the Russians could not master H2 fuel cells. If Buran was so good, why did it fly once?
Several years later in the Balkan war, our own stealth fighter was downed reportedly with Russian technology.
By any measure US stealth was an overwhelming success in the Balkan War. There was one (count 'em) loss out of 1000's of stealth sorties. No aircraft flies with absolute impunity. The question is, does stealth help accomplish the mission. The answer is a resounding yes, even against the best Russian air defenses.
It seems to me that the US designs everything around eliminating any chance for failure no matter how minute.
Poppycock! The parallel configuration of the space shuttle alone counters your ridiculous assertion. The idea of a delta winged aircraft boosting along side massive rockets and tankage that resembles a barn silo deserves some points for boldness and originality.
Meanwhile, the NASA guys and gals are still debating over the environmental impact of the steam created by the water used to cool the tower during launch
The 5 segment solid rocket motors to be used by both Ares boosters will spew even more metal oxides and nitrates into the upper atmosphere than the current shuttle stack. It makes for nice sunrises atthe Cape!
Re:Where are the advanced technical plans?
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 1
Can you be specific? To land a man on the moon a country will need a 150+ metric ton vehicle or an architecture for assembling vehicles from smaller parts.
China program is moribund
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The problem, as I see it, is that China is willing to take the risks, just as the US was forty years ago.
What risks are those? Their manned space program is derived from a Soyuz. Their first flight was in 2003. Their third won't be until 2008. They are flying a lunar mission to NASA's lunar orbiter of the early 1960's. The US has an absolute armada of spacecraft scattered around the solar system. I'd say China's space program is pretty moribund in comparison.
Where are the advanced technical plans?
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If all goes as planned, the United States and India will have astronauts on the moon by 2020, China by 2022, and Japan and Russia by 2025
The US has fairly credible plans for man-rated lunar launchers in the Ares I and Ares V, spacecraft in the Orion vehicle, and a large lunar lander. It seems to me that if these other nations are to reach the moon in their stated time frames they should be presenting plans for similar very large launchers and space architecture. Yet none are forthcoming. Russia won't get to the moon with a Soyuz or proton. Europe won't get there on an Arianne V. China won't get their with a Long March 4. Japan won't get there with an H2. India will not get there with one of their satellite launchers
Several historians told varying accounts of a Muslim army led by Amr ibn al 'Ass sacking the city (Alexandria) in 645, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library (of Alexandria, one of the great storehouses of knowledge in the ancient world), and received the response "...if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.", and thus burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers.
You seem to think that a number of launches makes an attempt impossible. I think it makes it affordable, seeing as launch costs remain one of the obstacles to an affordable space program. Frequent launches on a small platform will have lower costs than a few launches on a larger platform.
I am sure even the Chinese readers are wincing. You clearly don't know what such a mission would involve. I'd love to watch them try though.
A handful of high quality space science missions is an illusion. They don't even bother with the most obvious way to extend their science, ie, by making multiple copies of their probes. If Hayabusa was so useful, why did they only make one?
What a nutty point. Lets carry your illogic to its extreme. The US operates an armada of spacecraft around the solar system. None (except the dual Mars Rovers) share the same design. They are less effective for it?
India didn't get in either. It'll take more than democratic reforms to get into the ISS.
Yep. It will take a signed nuclear non-proliferation deal.
The Soyuz capsule still remains the most economical manned vehicle out there. It's roughly as safe as a Shuttle and costs considerably less per person or per kilogram.
No argument but you statement is irrelevent. The Soyuz was a great accomplishment for the USSR. But it is 50 years old and has some real design warts! In buying it Chinese show a pitiful lack of confidence.
They are developing the Long March 5 which they claim will be able to launch payloads up to 25 tons (analogous to the Ares 1). Not sure what it's status is, but they claim to be several years ahead of the Ares 1.
They claimed they would beat Japan's Selene mission to the moon, too.
25 tons is sufficient to land people on the moon. It will take orbital docking and refueling, neither which the Chinese have demonstrated, but it's feasible.
Really? LOL! It would take about 5 launches to get the required vehicle into LEO. This is the point of my original post. China's plans don't hold up to scrutiny, except for people like you who do not think criticly.
How about the unforeseeable future, namely, the period roughly 20-30 years from now when China has a higher GDP than the US?
You think they can maintain 10% growth for 40 years? Not likely.
The quality of Japan's scientific missions isn't that useful. A small number of technologically advanced missions are far less useful in space than a large number of more primitive scientific missions.
Hayabusa was a marvelous mission, by US standards. It may still return an asteroid sample which would be an absolute first. Selene is a first class lunar mission. What has China done in space science? Launch seeds into space.
National prestige only gets you so far and Japan needs to go beyond scientific missions if it wishes to be relevant in space.
Prestige powers manned spaceflight. Japan will have a large module on the ISS and a role in Project Constellation. China has groveled to the US to get into the ISS and to collaborate with NASA. Neither will happen until there are real democratic reforms and a multi-party political system in China.
One - ISS... I would not take too much of credit for ISS lightly, if I am not at least from former SSSR:).
By the time ISS is finished the Russians will have launched 2 modules. To date, these have been the most troublesome parts of the station. The US will have designed the entire thing, launched and assembled 29 modules, and have built all but 3 habitation modules. These are the facts.
US will spend lavishly, that is known and seen. 10x means nothing really.
"No bucks, no Buck Rogers." -- Astronaut Gus Grissom in Tom Wolff's "The Right Stuff"
Slashdot Mirror
Last year the 'problem' was that the Orion spacecraft was too heavy, and NASA was criticized on this forum. That was quickly and quietly solved, though the solution was not as widely reported inn the press. Ares I will use the largest solid rocket motor ever fired. Let the engineers work. If they can launch a space shuttle 120x using motors only 20% smaller, I think they can get the larger one working safely without the oversight of the New York Times.
The 787 common core system is designed by Smith's Areospace, not Honeywell. Honeywell performed so badly on the 777 program that they were relegated to the 2nd tier. I have heard that their FMS is late for the 787 as well.
I have been using Qt for the last 4 months and come to the same conclusion. Many of the Qt classes don't destruct properly. The toolkit is far too reliant on dynamic allocation, which is S-L-O-W and error prone. It also relies far too much on inheritance rather than composition. It doesn't use the c++ stdlib. Why QString instead of std::string? I found Qthread and friends to be more difficult to use and have fewer useful features than simple pthreads. The slot and signal event mechanism is archaic and disgusting. Templated slots and signals have been around for years. The horse is out of the barn, but the world would be better off without C++ and with more emphasis put on good C design.
The could, but perhaps it would be they who would be embarrassed.
If this is a truly an international disgrace and a great launch to science why don't ESA or the Russians launch it? They have the vehicles. I personally am counting the days when they deorbit ISS and move on to project Constellation.
Russia is building a spaceport in the far east because Kazakhstan is weary of toxic Proton launcher first stages crashing in their territory. Proton's are loaded with UDMH, a dangerous carcinogen, and Nitrogen Tetroxide, a highly concentrated acid. Central Asia is strewn with spent first stages of Protons and Soyuz. Like Baikonur the new spaceport would be located above 45 deg N, which requires increased rocket performance to launch most payloads compared to lower latitude launch sites like Cape Canaveral or Kourou. The high (52deg) inclination of the ISS is a compromise for the Russian launch site. As a result there are fewer launch opportunities for the shuttle. By the way, Johnson Space Center is not a launch site. Perhaps your are referring to Vandenberg AFB in California.
If slashdot thinks this story is newsworthy they should also post one about the new Chinese launch site on Hainan Island.
I am glad ITT won. I worked a contract on Lockmart's effort. It was one of the worst large projects I have ever seen. It was a C++/AIX effort and managed by pinheads like something out of the 1950's. For what the software does it was horrendously complex. Because the government is unwilling to retrain the air traffic controllers the system has an bizarre anachronistic GUI. They actually worked hard to reimplement the interface feature for bizarre feature. It is no great comfort that the US depends on systems like this for air safety.
The materials are probably mostly like variety mafic rocks with a larger crystal size, like Gabbro or Dacite. Being closer to the sun they should also contain more refractory oxides like TiO or Mg0 and maybe sulfides like FeS. You mine these rocks and bring them to earth temperatures and they act just like earth rocks. The mining on Venus is probably a lot worse than on earth because there is no water circulation to extract and concentrate metal ores from host rock. But who really knows?
It's hot and nothing is melted. On earth the melting point of rock is lowered by the amount of water they contain. Water acts as a flux. On Venus where the climate is intensely hot and dry, crustal rocks melt at a very high temperature and are very strong. They create some pretty wild landforms (scarps, cliffs...) as a result.
This or this don't seem so boring to me. The Maxwell Montes are higher than the Himalayas. With adiababic cooling their tops will be hundreds of degrees cooler than the planetary mean. Also, with all of the volcanism and mobile lava flows you can expect there to be some amazing lava rivers and lava tube caves.
Uh huh. Like the parent said, "no really compelling Java apps." Same goes for C#.
You mean like any other competently written cross platform API?
The Russians launched a small habitation module and a propulsion module. The US shuttle the other 23 of 28 modules so far. The name ISS was needlessly gratuitous. The old name "Space Station Freedom" should have been retained, and a Russian place on it revoked.
Sad that Slashdot chooses to be relentlessly negative about NASA, while touting the lilliputian efforts of Russia and China. The STS-120 repair mission on the ISS I saw last week was about the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Russia or China won't be able to build something like that for 50 years! NASA deserves a party.
One wonders what happened to the Kliper? It was touted as being practical and reliable. Russian space architecture seems confused.
The growth differential between the US and China is 6-7%. There is general agreement that China this differential will shrink not grow. The Chinese economy is currently 1/6 the size of the US: $2G vs. $13G. Where do you get your math?
I just watched a US astronaut conduct the most amazing repair mission ever attempted on our 1000000lb space station. China has launched 2 short space missions since 2003 and won't launch a 3rd until 2008. I don't think we need to worry. China is as far from a manned mission to the moon as the US is from a manned mission to Mars.
Yes, you use the funds to pay idle farmers.
Like these?
Only a fool would suggest that a Mig 29 makes anything but a fine target for a front line American fighter.
The shuttle is capable of flying completely automated. Rumor has it that Buran fly with 4 tons of lead acid car batteries because the Russians could not master H2 fuel cells. If Buran was so good, why did it fly once?
LOL! Ask the Israelis about the effectiveness of Russian air defenses. It is barely worth the effort to blow up Russian military technology anymore.
By any measure US stealth was an overwhelming success in the Balkan War. There was one (count 'em) loss out of 1000's of stealth sorties. No aircraft flies with absolute impunity. The question is, does stealth help accomplish the mission. The answer is a resounding yes, even against the best Russian air defenses.
Poppycock! The parallel configuration of the space shuttle alone counters your ridiculous assertion. The idea of a delta winged aircraft boosting along side massive rockets and tankage that resembles a barn silo deserves some points for boldness and originality.
The 5 segment solid rocket motors to be used by both Ares boosters will spew even more metal oxides and nitrates into the upper atmosphere than the current shuttle stack. It makes for nice sunrises atthe Cape!
Can you be specific? To land a man on the moon a country will need a 150+ metric ton vehicle or an architecture for assembling vehicles from smaller parts.
What risks are those? Their manned space program is derived from a Soyuz. Their first flight was in 2003. Their third won't be until 2008. They are flying a lunar mission to NASA's lunar orbiter of the early 1960's. The US has an absolute armada of spacecraft scattered around the solar system. I'd say China's space program is pretty moribund in comparison.
The US has fairly credible plans for man-rated lunar launchers in the Ares I and Ares V, spacecraft in the Orion vehicle, and a large lunar lander. It seems to me that if these other nations are to reach the moon in their stated time frames they should be presenting plans for similar very large launchers and space architecture. Yet none are forthcoming. Russia won't get to the moon with a Soyuz or proton. Europe won't get there on an Arianne V. China won't get their with a Long March 4. Japan won't get there with an H2. India will not get there with one of their satellite launchers
Several historians told varying accounts of a Muslim army led by Amr ibn al 'Ass sacking the city (Alexandria) in 645, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library (of Alexandria, one of the great storehouses of knowledge in the ancient world), and received the response "...if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.", and thus burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers.
Your assertion is absurd.
I am sure even the Chinese readers are wincing. You clearly don't know what such a mission would involve. I'd love to watch them try though.
What a nutty point. Lets carry your illogic to its extreme. The US operates an armada of spacecraft around the solar system. None (except the dual Mars Rovers) share the same design. They are less effective for it?
Yep. It will take a signed nuclear non-proliferation deal.
No argument but you statement is irrelevent. The Soyuz was a great accomplishment for the USSR. But it is 50 years old and has some real design warts! In buying it Chinese show a pitiful lack of confidence.
They claimed they would beat Japan's Selene mission to the moon, too.
Really? LOL! It would take about 5 launches to get the required vehicle into LEO. This is the point of my original post. China's plans don't hold up to scrutiny, except for people like you who do not think criticly.
You think they can maintain 10% growth for 40 years? Not likely.
Hayabusa was a marvelous mission, by US standards. It may still return an asteroid sample which would be an absolute first. Selene is a first class lunar mission. What has China done in space science? Launch seeds into space.
Prestige powers manned spaceflight. Japan will have a large module on the ISS and a role in Project Constellation. China has groveled to the US to get into the ISS and to collaborate with NASA. Neither will happen until there are real democratic reforms and a multi-party political system in China.
By the time ISS is finished the Russians will have launched 2 modules. To date, these have been the most troublesome parts of the station. The US will have designed the entire thing, launched and assembled 29 modules, and have built all but 3 habitation modules. These are the facts.
"No bucks, no Buck Rogers." -- Astronaut Gus Grissom in Tom Wolff's "The Right Stuff"
China won't get to the moon on hot air.