As neat as it would be to live in a world where everyone has PVR's integrated into their TV's, and anyone interested connects to a.torrent for the file through a web interface on their TV/media pc/whatever, I can't see it likely in any near future.
1. The inconvenience. As another poster indicated, BT downloads RANDOM chunks, so you'd have to wait until the entire file is downloaded until you can watch it.
2. The bandwidth. If this BT concept became as ubiquitous as PVR's will be in the future, the home ISPs would collectively have a heart attack. Now, I don't own my own ISP, but from what I understand just about all of them could never put up with every, or a significant amount, of their subscribers utilizing their upload amounts. They sell you those great 3mbit/1mbit (or whatever) lines, but if you consistently use the 1mbit line for WHATEVER reason, many ISPs (comcast anyone?) will automatically flag and cap you once you cross a data transfer amount (an amount they refuse to disclose to you). Granted, torrents are a great idea for spreading popular files, but it is a system that requires (or at least thrives on) people kicking back whatever they can into the system.
Anyone else see that as a serious problem?
Relativistic issues aside, no, the far end would not move right away...it depends on the speed of sound in the metal of your choice. When you push it, you create a pressure wave that is passed along the crystalline structure of the rod as a lattice vibration (a phonon or sound wave if you will), and the other end won't know you're even pushing on it until the phonons have a chance to traverse the length of the rod.
As for apparently psychic twins, maybe all twins in the world are just members of a conspiracy that wants to promote the idea of ESP/telepathy, and act accordingly...
An additional disadvantage is the planned orbit of the JWST out at L2 means that once it's launched, there's no replacing/upgrading any instruments as there is/was with Hubble...I don't know the specs of the JWST's electronics offhand, but the average time from design to deployment of a space telescope has gotta be 6-8 years. Electronics moves quite a bit in 6 to eight years...hell, my calculator is alot smarter than the Galileo was, and probably more than Cassini too..
One of the things that made Hubble so GREAT was that you could replace instruments with newer, better tools without having to build a new observatory. It will be a shame scientifically to just throw that away.
The reason for abandoning the Hubble, the most productive single scientific instrument EVER, was twofold. First and formost is safety. Second is that all the shuttles will be needed to fly to the ISS....however both of these come down really to the same issue, $$$. The reason no shuttles CAN fly to go get Hubble (the original idea was to do at least one more repair mission, then go get it for the smithsonian in 2010), is not strictly due to the fact that they can't make it from Hubble's orbit to the ISS. The problem would be that NASA would have to actually develop an on-orbit method of inspecting and repairing holes in the heat shield, which would cost quite a bit. Plus as an emergency backup they would have to have another shuttle on the launchpad to do an emergency rescue mission if necessary, which could be very dangerous and costly as well.
The other aspect is the fact that we're down to three orbiters, and have a lot of work to do on the ISS with very limited funds to launch with. A separate mission or two to the Hubble would mean that a) the ISS would be delayed again and b) the money would have to come from somewhere for the launch.
So what this means is that from the failure of Hubble to the launch of the JWST there will be nothing, unfortunately...naturally all the scientists are pretty let down. A guy at the hubble control center (can't remember the name...) was quoted the other day saying that eveyrone there is dusting off their resumes since good times are over.
The kick in the teeth is that both new instruments that were going to be installed into Hubble at the next servicing mission (a new, better camera and something else, i forget) are both BUILT already by the science teams here on the ground, and are now effectively waste. There's your tax dollars at work. I wonder how much money NASA burns annually in preparing for programs that eventually get axed altogether?
Re:The real future of NASA (as I see it)
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I believe it was that the Columbia, as the oldest of the orbiters, was simply designed/built too heavy to make it up to the altitude/inclination of the orbit of the ISS even from launch let alone from orbit, that's why Columbia never was used to go to the ISS before, and why it never would have been a viable option anyway
I fail to understand how we are going to precisely fulfill our committments to our international partners...the cancellation of the X-33/34 project and the cancellation of the CRV mean (and have meant for what, two years now?) that yes, the ISS is not really able to accomplish alot. It was a little difficult for the 3 person crews to accomplish significant science with 1 science module attached to the ISS a year ago, and since the shuttle has been grounded, there's only two-person crews...for those that don't know, the ISS was designed for 7 full-time residents, and all those modules we let other countries build for us (which are still sitting in labs somewhere waiting there chance to go up in space) kind of rely on 7 people to staff all of them. No CRV (crew return vehicle) means that we'll have to indefinitely continue relying on the Soyuz capsule as the only escape method, which means that only a maximum of 3 people can be left onboard...so even IF all the modules are assembled in orbit, how can a crew of 2 to 3 people accomplish the same as 7 or more? The guys up there have hard enough a time already, just keeping the damn thing running.
NASA has backed off of 'keeping up their commitments' to their international parters for some time now.
And if I were anyone employed (directly, once was contracted indirectly by them) by NASA NOT involved with men to moon/mars, I'd be terrified by the plan.
Was there any announcements made as to the status of the pluto/kupier probe that seemingly not even NASA wanted to build, or the next round of mars-bound probes at next launch window? I know robots are cheaper than humans, but those 11 billion dollars have to come from somewhere...hopefully they won't come from JWST or SIRTF/Spitzer or one of the other high-profile projects (and damn them all who want to just abandon Hubble...the original plan was to bring it back down and put it in the smithsonian, however now a) noone wants to send the shuttle after it and b) that'll likely be the first target for money re-allocation so c) it's sure to burn up over australia in 6 years...).
As to mr. bush's promises...yes I'm gung-ho about anything space, and fairly excited about the opportunities, but he's got a pretty bad track record when it comes to ACTUALLY funding big projects that sound great as sound bites (AIDS in africa, no child left behind, etc...), so when the money starts materializing under president dean next winter, i'll sigh relief...
Slashdot Mirror
As neat as it would be to live in a world where everyone has PVR's integrated into their TV's, and anyone interested connects to a .torrent for the file through a web interface on their TV/media pc/whatever, I can't see it likely in any near future.
1. The inconvenience. As another poster indicated, BT downloads RANDOM chunks, so you'd have to wait until the entire file is downloaded until you can watch it.
2. The bandwidth. If this BT concept became as ubiquitous as PVR's will be in the future, the home ISPs would collectively have a heart attack. Now, I don't own my own ISP, but from what I understand just about all of them could never put up with every, or a significant amount, of their subscribers utilizing their upload amounts. They sell you those great 3mbit/1mbit (or whatever) lines, but if you consistently use the 1mbit line for WHATEVER reason, many ISPs (comcast anyone?) will automatically flag and cap you once you cross a data transfer amount (an amount they refuse to disclose to you). Granted, torrents are a great idea for spreading popular files, but it is a system that requires (or at least thrives on) people kicking back whatever they can into the system.
Anyone else see that as a serious problem?
Relativistic issues aside, no, the far end would not move right away...it depends on the speed of sound in the metal of your choice. When you push it, you create a pressure wave that is passed along the crystalline structure of the rod as a lattice vibration (a phonon or sound wave if you will), and the other end won't know you're even pushing on it until the phonons have a chance to traverse the length of the rod. As for apparently psychic twins, maybe all twins in the world are just members of a conspiracy that wants to promote the idea of ESP/telepathy, and act accordingly...
An additional disadvantage is the planned orbit of the JWST out at L2 means that once it's launched, there's no replacing/upgrading any instruments as there is/was with Hubble...I don't know the specs of the JWST's electronics offhand, but the average time from design to deployment of a space telescope has gotta be 6-8 years. Electronics moves quite a bit in 6 to eight years...hell, my calculator is alot smarter than the Galileo was, and probably more than Cassini too.. One of the things that made Hubble so GREAT was that you could replace instruments with newer, better tools without having to build a new observatory. It will be a shame scientifically to just throw that away.
The reason for abandoning the Hubble, the most productive single scientific instrument EVER, was twofold. First and formost is safety. Second is that all the shuttles will be needed to fly to the ISS. ...however both of these come down really to the same issue, $$$. The reason no shuttles CAN fly to go get Hubble (the original idea was to do at least one more repair mission, then go get it for the smithsonian in 2010), is not strictly due to the fact that they can't make it from Hubble's orbit to the ISS. The problem would be that NASA would have to actually develop an on-orbit method of inspecting and repairing holes in the heat shield, which would cost quite a bit. Plus as an emergency backup they would have to have another shuttle on the launchpad to do an emergency rescue mission if necessary, which could be very dangerous and costly as well.
The other aspect is the fact that we're down to three orbiters, and have a lot of work to do on the ISS with very limited funds to launch with. A separate mission or two to the Hubble would mean that a) the ISS would be delayed again and b) the money would have to come from somewhere for the launch.
So what this means is that from the failure of Hubble to the launch of the JWST there will be nothing, unfortunately...naturally all the scientists are pretty let down. A guy at the hubble control center (can't remember the name...) was quoted the other day saying that eveyrone there is dusting off their resumes since good times are over.
The kick in the teeth is that both new instruments that were going to be installed into Hubble at the next servicing mission (a new, better camera and something else, i forget) are both BUILT already by the science teams here on the ground, and are now effectively waste. There's your tax dollars at work. I wonder how much money NASA burns annually in preparing for programs that eventually get axed altogether?
I believe it was that the Columbia, as the oldest of the orbiters, was simply designed/built too heavy to make it up to the altitude/inclination of the orbit of the ISS even from launch let alone from orbit, that's why Columbia never was used to go to the ISS before, and why it never would have been a viable option anyway
I fail to understand how we are going to precisely fulfill our committments to our international partners...the cancellation of the X-33/34 project and the cancellation of the CRV mean (and have meant for what, two years now?) that yes, the ISS is not really able to accomplish alot. It was a little difficult for the 3 person crews to accomplish significant science with 1 science module attached to the ISS a year ago, and since the shuttle has been grounded, there's only two-person crews...for those that don't know, the ISS was designed for 7 full-time residents, and all those modules we let other countries build for us (which are still sitting in labs somewhere waiting there chance to go up in space) kind of rely on 7 people to staff all of them. No CRV (crew return vehicle) means that we'll have to indefinitely continue relying on the Soyuz capsule as the only escape method, which means that only a maximum of 3 people can be left onboard...so even IF all the modules are assembled in orbit, how can a crew of 2 to 3 people accomplish the same as 7 or more? The guys up there have hard enough a time already, just keeping the damn thing running. NASA has backed off of 'keeping up their commitments' to their international parters for some time now.
And if I were anyone employed (directly, once was contracted indirectly by them) by NASA NOT involved with men to moon/mars, I'd be terrified by the plan.
Was there any announcements made as to the status of the pluto/kupier probe that seemingly not even NASA wanted to build, or the next round of mars-bound probes at next launch window? I know robots are cheaper than humans, but those 11 billion dollars have to come from somewhere...hopefully they won't come from JWST or SIRTF/Spitzer or one of the other high-profile projects (and damn them all who want to just abandon Hubble...the original plan was to bring it back down and put it in the smithsonian, however now a) noone wants to send the shuttle after it and b) that'll likely be the first target for money re-allocation so c) it's sure to burn up over australia in 6 years...).
As to mr. bush's promises...yes I'm gung-ho about anything space, and fairly excited about the opportunities, but he's got a pretty bad track record when it comes to ACTUALLY funding big projects that sound great as sound bites (AIDS in africa, no child left behind, etc...), so when the money starts materializing under president dean next winter, i'll sigh relief...