This makes me wonder how long it'll be until this sort of tech gets miniaturized enough to fit on a portable gun, so we end up with people toting Aliens-style M56 Smart Guns. You could imagine it being coupled with some sort of friendly-fire deterrence system like they use with aircraft.
It's a machine gun for the Korean demilitarised zone.
There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy, and there's nobody in there that isn't armed (or at least, it doesn't matter if they are or not).
And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares.
It's also worth noting that the Korean DMZ is already heavily-landmined. The purpose of these turrets is to shoot at anything trying to cross through which hasn't already been obliterated by the landmines.
In all likelihood it's going to be a very short hop, sort of like the things Armadillo Aerospace has been doing. They probably just want to verify their ability to launch and land, not necessarily test things out to capacity.
The article only mentions The Typing of the Dead as an honorable mention, but I'd have to say that it's probably my favorite Dreamcast game. It sounds really odd -- using your typing prowess to battle zombies -- but it's surprisingly fun. It's particularly fun if you have two keyboards, so you and a friend can scream at each other as you're frantically typing.
Also, if you're like me and have a bunch of PS/2 keyboards already sitting around, there's a Dreamcast-PS/2 adapter you can get. It doesn't cost much less than a dedicated Dreamcast keyboard, but it results in less clutter.
I guess you missed yesterday's story documenting the US' clear intention to be the single entity with control over access to space; 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."'
By that same logic, the US has also announced a clear intention to be the "single entity with control over access to the air." After all, the Air Force's mission is more-or-less to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in air, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."
> Within the context of applicable laws. The laws we define.
Sure, and you can produce any speech you want, worship any religion you want, or peacably assembly to protest what you want... within the context of applicable laws. The point is that there (at least should be) limits to what laws control.
The linked article only shows the photos of a mockup of SS2's interior. The coverage over at Gizmodo includes some images from Virgin Galactic which show the conceptual design for the exterior of SpaceShipTwo:
Actually, they do seem to have stealth satellites, developed under the MISTY program. Here's an interesting snippet from an article a couple years ago:
The United States is building a new generation of spy satellites designed to orbit undetected, in a highly classified program that has provoked opposition in closed congressional sessions where lawmakers have questioned its necessity and rapidly escalating price, according to U.S. officials.
The previously undisclosed effort has almost doubled in projected cost -- from $5 billion to nearly $9.5 billion, officials said. The National Reconnaissance Office, which manages spy satellite programs, has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the program, officials said. The satellite in question would be the third and final version in a series of spacecraft funded under a classified program once known as Misty, officials said....
He fails to understand that in the 40+ year history of AI research noone has demonstrated even the inklings or foundations upon which actual AI can be built upon.
How does he misunderstand that? All he's saying is that there isn't any sort of magical power or cartesian dualism in the brain which somehow creates an immaterial mind/soul separate from the physical world. He isn't making claims that AI researchers have actually figured out things yet.
And yes, I have spoken to people that think it's impossible to create an AI because computers don't have a soul.
Cute graph, but it's actually quite different from the law which was just signed. The graph you linked only lists overall spending by various departments, while the database created by the law will actually show the individual contracts and grants given out, and (more importantly) the companies and districts which will receive the money.
Besides that, the "Budget Graph" you linked is actually rather misleading. It only plots discretionary spending (which is just about one-third of the federal budget), leaving out entitlements like social security, medicare, and medicaid. Even in the site's FAQ they say that "adding a large circle for Social Security would have made the whole graph unbalanced." Here's their graph which includes entitlements:
Which, given the current pathetic state of our space program, makes me expect we'll see a yellow star on a red flag planted on the Moon long before we see another Stars and Stripes.
Of course, last I checked, the US devoted more resources to its space program each year than all the other world's space programs combined.
It's a fairly interesting read, and even though it's still rough in spots it's certainly better-informed than the scientifically-confused New Scientist piece linked in the submission. I particularly suggest reading through the analysis of Shawyer's claims.
* Even though it initially only involves a study into the possibility of Atlas V transport to the Bigelow station, just the fact that one of the largest aerospace companies is taking seriously the prospect of commercial manned spaceflight independent of NASA is going to have a big impact on attitudes towards it by NASA and other mainstream companies.
* The high launch rates depend to some extent on space tourism but Bigelow is currently focusing on plans to convince a lot of the countries that currently do not have manned space capabilities to create their own astronaut programs and to center these programs around utilization of the Bigelow facility. The Lockheed deal should make it easier for Bigelow to convince such countries that the opportunities for space access to the facility are for real.
* NASASpaceflight.com notes the potential impact on the COTS winners - SpaceX and Rocketplane-Kistler. However, if those companies succeed in their development plans, their reusable vehicles should be considerably cheaper to operate than the Atlas V. Also, I doubt that Bigelow would want to be dependent on just one vehicle and would most likely contract with at least one other transport company.
* If this plan goes forward and Lockheed-Martin begins developing a manned version of the Atlas V, it's difficult to believe that NASA could continue with the Ares I/Orion program as currently configured. Arguing that the Orion couldn't possibly be made lighter is not going to be sufficient reason to justify a multi-billion dollar duplication of a launch capability that's available at a much lower price.
* Lockheed has the contract for the Orion capsule, which means that they can probably piggy-back a lot of their space tourism capsule work off of what they're doing for Orion. Also, if they happen to be able to field their Atlas V tourism vehicle before Orion, they might be able to make out like total bandits--netting billions in development funds for something that they can turn around and say "look, we have a cheaper, and better alternative that's already on the market, --go with us, and you could save lots of money". The upshot being even more flights on their Atlas V. I think this is potentially win-win-win for Lockheed.
* As LM has pointed out elsewhere a lot of the price hikes for Atlas V stem from the fact that they're only launching 2-4 of these per year. They have to cover all of their payroll costs, factory maintenance and upkeep costs, pad ops costs, etc but spread out over much fewer launches. At 2-4 flights per year, they're looking at $140M for their barebones Atlas V, while at 6-8 flights per year they were offering it initially for about $70M. At 20 flights per year, maybe they could cut the price down into the $35-50M range. At that point, the costs per person would be in the $5-10M range.
* Bigelow has stated time and again that he's not in the orbital hotel business. He expects to make most of his money off of building space stations for research, manufacturing, providing low-cost space programs to countries not traditionally thought of as having space programs, as well as orbital tourism. A lot of those other markets aren't as sensitive to cost per ticket as they are to reliability of access. 16 flights per year means that you have a ride
Before someone asks... The reason NASA chose to develop a new vehicle instead od using an EELV was because it was deemed practically impossible to modify the exisiting designs to accomodate humans. Specifically, these vehicles fly an extreme loft trajectory. In the event of an abort... the re-entry loads would likely not be survivable. By comparison, human-rated vehicle fly much 'flatter' trajectories.
and yes...IAARS.
I'm curious about what your thoughts are on this part of the article:
The reason for the NASA ESAS man-rating concerns was due to the 25mT CEV mass requirement, which ESAS maintained could not safely even be met by the massive Atlas V Heavy variant. According to a Lockheed Martin paper unveiled this week at the Space 2006 conference, the basic Atlas V 401 can meet FAA and NASA man-rating requirements with little modification with a much smaller capsule mass of 20,000 lbs.
At 20,000 lbs, there is enough margin in the Atlas V 401's flight envelope to allow the crew to safely abort at any time during launch, closing all unsafe 'black-zones'. Also, at 20,000 lbs structural loads on the vehicle are decreased enough so that a detailed Lockheed analysis indicates that all primary structures meet NASA 1.4 Factor of Safety margins.
Analysis also shows the Russian-built RD-180 engine in this regime revealed only one component that fell a hair below the 1.4 margin, at a 1.38 Factor of Safety.
Slashdot Mirror
> You can tell what a society deems the most important based on the size of the buildings erected for it.
By that logic, we're clearly a society which places a great deal of importance on aircraft assembly.
A bomb with the same general dimensions would do far more damage.
> So what you are saying is that poverty must exist in order for you to maintain your high standard of living.
Despite the common belief among liberals, economics isn't a zero-sum game.
This makes me wonder how long it'll be until this sort of tech gets miniaturized enough to fit on a portable gun, so we end up with people toting Aliens-style M56 Smart Guns. You could imagine it being coupled with some sort of friendly-fire deterrence system like they use with aircraft.
It's a machine gun for the Korean demilitarised zone.
There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy, and there's nobody in there that isn't armed (or at least, it doesn't matter if they are or not).
And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares.
It's also worth noting that the Korean DMZ is already heavily-landmined. The purpose of these turrets is to shoot at anything trying to cross through which hasn't already been obliterated by the landmines.
I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.
I think that'd end up banning pretty much any sort of guided missile or bomb.
In all likelihood it's going to be a very short hop, sort of like the things Armadillo Aerospace has been doing. They probably just want to verify their ability to launch and land, not necessarily test things out to capacity.
The article only mentions The Typing of the Dead as an honorable mention, but I'd have to say that it's probably my favorite Dreamcast game. It sounds really odd -- using your typing prowess to battle zombies -- but it's surprisingly fun. It's particularly fun if you have two keyboards, so you and a friend can scream at each other as you're frantically typing.
Also, if you're like me and have a bunch of PS/2 keyboards already sitting around, there's a Dreamcast-PS/2 adapter you can get. It doesn't cost much less than a dedicated Dreamcast keyboard, but it results in less clutter.
I totally agree. I'm a big fan of notions like sousveillance and the Transparent Society, but it requires that surveillance be mutual.
I guess you missed yesterday's story documenting the US' clear intention to be the single entity with control over access to space; 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."'
By that same logic, the US has also announced a clear intention to be the "single entity with control over access to the air." After all, the Air Force's mission is more-or-less to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in air, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."
No because if you use up the money you spent it's just gone.
They won't take more and more leaving you penniless.
What if an online casino only allows you to purchase a limited number of tokens/plays each month?
I actually came across an extensive paper on this topic, Internet Gambling Regulation Present and Future: Technology Outpaces Legislation as the MMORPG Problem Emerges.
> Within the context of applicable laws. The laws we define.
Sure, and you can produce any speech you want, worship any religion you want, or peacably assembly to protest what you want... within the context of applicable laws. The point is that there (at least should be) limits to what laws control.
The linked article only shows the photos of a mockup of SS2's interior. The coverage over at Gizmodo includes some images from Virgin Galactic which show the conceptual design for the exterior of SpaceShipTwo:
e s-of-virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-cabin-203802.php
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/first-imag
One of the images compares the size of SpaceShipTwo to other vehicles, such as SpaceShipOne, the Bell X-1, and a Boeing 747.
Actually, they do seem to have stealth satellites, developed under the MISTY program. Here's an interesting snippet from an article a couple years ago:
1 71-2004Dec10.html
y /mystery_monday_050103.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56
The United States is building a new generation of spy satellites designed to orbit undetected, in a highly classified program that has provoked opposition in closed congressional sessions where lawmakers have questioned its necessity and rapidly escalating price, according to U.S. officials.
The previously undisclosed effort has almost doubled in projected cost -- from $5 billion to nearly $9.5 billion, officials said. The National Reconnaissance Office, which manages spy satellite programs, has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the program, officials said. The satellite in question would be the third and final version in a series of spacecraft funded under a classified program once known as Misty, officials said....
Here's an article with some more info:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technolog
He fails to understand that in the 40+ year history of AI research noone has demonstrated even the inklings or foundations upon which actual AI can be built upon.
How does he misunderstand that? All he's saying is that there isn't any sort of magical power or cartesian dualism in the brain which somehow creates an immaterial mind/soul separate from the physical world. He isn't making claims that AI researchers have actually figured out things yet.
And yes, I have spoken to people that think it's impossible to create an AI because computers don't have a soul.
Cute graph, but it's actually quite different from the law which was just signed. The graph you linked only lists overall spending by various departments, while the database created by the law will actually show the individual contracts and grants given out, and (more importantly) the companies and districts which will receive the money.
6 .0
Besides that, the "Budget Graph" you linked is actually rather misleading. It only plots discretionary spending (which is just about one-third of the federal budget), leaving out entitlements like social security, medicare, and medicaid. Even in the site's FAQ they say that "adding a large circle for Social Security would have made the whole graph unbalanced." Here's their graph which includes entitlements:
http://thebudgetgraph.com/forums/index.php?topic=
She was referring to the air onboard the station -- I rather doubt she's spending any time outside the station without a spacesuit.
Correct, Anousheh was the main funder, not the founder. The founder is Peter Diamandis, who is the other main poster on the linked blog.
Which, given the current pathetic state of our space program, makes me expect we'll see a yellow star on a red flag planted on the Moon long before we see another Stars and Stripes.
Of course, last I checked, the US devoted more resources to its space program each year than all the other world's space programs combined.
Actually, she (like all other cosmonauts) went through several months of training in Russia before the launch.
Hm.. it looks like there isn't a Wikipedia article on Roger Shawyer, but there is an article on his "EmDrive":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
It's a fairly interesting read, and even though it's still rough in spots it's certainly better-informed than the scientifically-confused New Scientist piece linked in the submission. I particularly suggest reading through the analysis of Shawyer's claims.
(I've connected some analysis by various people in the space blogosphere, many of whom are current or former aerospace engineers)
Clark Lindsay's RLV News, an (excellent) site for private spaceflight news, has some pretty good analysis of the deal. From his latest post:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid =2397
* Even though it initially only involves a study into the possibility of Atlas V transport to the Bigelow station, just the fact that one of the largest aerospace companies is taking seriously the prospect of commercial manned spaceflight independent of NASA is going to have a big impact on attitudes towards it by NASA and other mainstream companies.
* The high launch rates depend to some extent on space tourism but Bigelow is currently focusing on plans to convince a lot of the countries that currently do not have manned space capabilities to create their own astronaut programs and to center these programs around utilization of the Bigelow facility. The Lockheed deal should make it easier for Bigelow to convince such countries that the opportunities for space access to the facility are for real.
* NASASpaceflight.com notes the potential impact on the COTS winners - SpaceX and Rocketplane-Kistler. However, if those companies succeed in their development plans, their reusable vehicles should be considerably cheaper to operate than the Atlas V. Also, I doubt that Bigelow would want to be dependent on just one vehicle and would most likely contract with at least one other transport company.
* If this plan goes forward and Lockheed-Martin begins developing a manned version of the Atlas V, it's difficult to believe that NASA could continue with the Ares I/Orion program as currently configured. Arguing that the Orion couldn't possibly be made lighter is not going to be sufficient reason to justify a multi-billion dollar duplication of a launch capability that's available at a much lower price.
From Selenian Boondocks:
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/09/lock heedbigelow-space-tourism-deal.html
* Lockheed has the contract for the Orion capsule, which means that they can probably piggy-back a lot of their space tourism capsule work off of what they're doing for Orion. Also, if they happen to be able to field their Atlas V tourism vehicle before Orion, they might be able to make out like total bandits--netting billions in development funds for something that they can turn around and say "look, we have a cheaper, and better alternative that's already on the market, --go with us, and you could save lots of money". The upshot being even more flights on their Atlas V. I think this is potentially win-win-win for Lockheed.
* As LM has pointed out elsewhere a lot of the price hikes for Atlas V stem from the fact that they're only launching 2-4 of these per year. They have to cover all of their payroll costs, factory maintenance and upkeep costs, pad ops costs, etc but spread out over much fewer launches. At 2-4 flights per year, they're looking at $140M for their barebones Atlas V, while at 6-8 flights per year they were offering it initially for about $70M. At 20 flights per year, maybe they could cut the price down into the $35-50M range. At that point, the costs per person would be in the $5-10M range.
* Bigelow has stated time and again that he's not in the orbital hotel business. He expects to make most of his money off of building space stations for research, manufacturing, providing low-cost space programs to countries not traditionally thought of as having space programs, as well as orbital tourism. A lot of those other markets aren't as sensitive to cost per ticket as they are to reliability of access. 16 flights per year means that you have a ride
Before someone asks... The reason NASA chose to develop a new vehicle instead od using an EELV was because it was deemed practically impossible to modify the exisiting designs to accomodate humans. Specifically, these vehicles fly an extreme loft trajectory. In the event of an abort... the re-entry loads would likely not be survivable. By comparison, human-rated vehicle fly much 'flatter' trajectories.
and yes...IAARS.
I'm curious about what your thoughts are on this part of the article:
The reason for the NASA ESAS man-rating concerns was due to the 25mT CEV mass requirement, which ESAS maintained could not safely even be met by the massive Atlas V Heavy variant. According to a Lockheed Martin paper unveiled this week at the Space 2006 conference, the basic Atlas V 401 can meet FAA and NASA man-rating requirements with little modification with a much smaller capsule mass of 20,000 lbs.
At 20,000 lbs, there is enough margin in the Atlas V 401's flight envelope to allow the crew to safely abort at any time during launch, closing all unsafe 'black-zones'. Also, at 20,000 lbs structural loads on the vehicle are decreased enough so that a detailed Lockheed analysis indicates that all primary structures meet NASA 1.4 Factor of Safety margins.
Analysis also shows the Russian-built RD-180 engine in this regime revealed only one component that fell a hair below the 1.4 margin, at a 1.38 Factor of Safety.
> monopoly market is an oxymoron.
Sure, but regarding the question of whether or not Ansari paid for herself, it just means that she was price-gouged.