"Even planning a space-to-space attack can take hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a proper position."
I believe the author meant to say space-to-ground attack, otherwise the sentence does not make sense in the context of the paragraph.
"[The Soviets] demonstrated the high reliability of the operational Soviet 'killer satellite'"
See first quote response. Additionally, Reliability and timeliness are not the same thing.
"The enormous advantage of an orbital system"
See first quote response. Additionally, Effectiveness and timeliness are not the same thing.
"They could even use the Moon's gravity to surreptitiously slip into the high-altitude orbits of key US observation, communications, and navigation satellites."
This is something you disagree with, not a contradiction.
"The International Sock Puppet Corporation is announcing, 'The International Sock Puppet Corporation is set to take one of its most significant steps into the digital age with the launch of HAL. This sock puppet is made of soft luxurious cashmere and will deliver comfort and style to the user and "friends" across the globe.' It's not yet the HAL of 2001, but how long before can read lips!?"
'Look this system is going to rev 80.22.6 from rev 80.22.5 and it has the same name as something ominous I have seen in a movie!'
I mean seriously. This summary is just silly.
The Orbital Express program consists of two satellites: ASTRO (servicer) and NextSat (servicee). The program will demonstrate the capability for ASTRO to service NextSat (e.g., doing a fuel transfer). If all goes well then there will be a follow on program. Orbital Express is not a GEO sat. The shuttle cannot service all GEO, MEO, and most LEO satellites. GEO satellites require constant maneuvering in order to maintain their orbits. Satellites do not last 20 years (but they do orbit for that period and longer). Congrats to all those who worked on the program, and good luck with the demonstration!
I think it is talked about far more than it should be considering it is little more than science fiction. Prove to me it is the focus of substantial research and I will reconsider.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be: "Drive 300 cars at a constant speed on the surface of a massive planet which is entirely paved. Add some more cars to the mix traveling at the exact same speed as the original 300 cars. Have someone constantly monitoring all the cars and steering the original 300 cars to avoid collisions."
But, the orbit circumference of a GSO is 164,582 miles! The surface area of the sphere available for GSO is huge. Divide that among the ~300 operating geosynchronous satellites.
Space is huge! There are a large number of resident space objects in orbit right now and collisions are extremely rare. Even if a field of debris was scattered in a particular orbit, the launch would be tracked by the air force, the debris would be tracked by the air force, and stationkeeping would be performed by satellite owners to prevent damage to US military assets. The only real threat to satellites is a targeted attack.
Serious question. What are the differences between OS PPC and OS Moto, or OSX PPC and OSX x86, that result in a trojan, worm, or virus succeeding on one, but not the other?
Re:NASA as a research center vs. pretty space thin
on
NASA Science Under Attack
·
· Score: 2, Informative
read, a lot of money goes into the hands of a few private firms that are on good terms with the Bush administration.
I once read an interesting article on cluster computing, which basically said that the fastest and cheapest way to solve any truly big computational problem was, "Wait a few years before buying the cluster." Given the rates at which prices for storage, processing, and networking were plummeting, a problem that would take eight years to solve today could be solvable in four years two years out, and in two years two years from now. So by putting it off for two years, you'd shave two years off the project.
How many times should a problem be put off two years before it should be started? NASA projects are not computer science problems.
The current plan doesn't get us to the moon until 2018 anyways, and without a cheap way to keep things flowing between here and the moon, the chance of a sustained human presence is nil. So we could spend $100B building basically the same propulsion-based solutions we've always been building, or we could spend a much smaller sum on fundamental materials research.
The shuttle was the result of the same kind of arm waving arguments for unproven technologies that I hear about the space elevator. And look where that got us. Sticking to what the military and commercial space industry is using is wise (ie, liquid/solid fuel rocket propulsion). I doubt that there would be little interest in the space elevator from serious aerospace companies unless there was nothing there to be serious about.
I don't see it as a gamble, because without a drastically cheaper way to get into space, we'll just retrace the journeys of the Apollo missions. Then the whole nation will kick back, pop open a beer, mutter "Yep, still got it," and wait to do it all over again in 2050.
You know they are talking about building a moon base and going to Mars right? You may brush off the next moon mission as retracing our steps (even though you will likely play no part in it). But, those of us who work in aerospace will take great pride in what will undoubtably be the most challenging project since the space shuttle program was ramping up.
"On Sept. 1, 2004, NASA tapped 11 companies to conduct preliminary concept studies for human lunar exploration and the development of the crew exploration vehicle."
I do not know about Apollo (I think that program might have had its funding cut), but I believe the ISS has (or will have) a complete simulator of the type you described, developed by the USA (not the country).
I would just like to point out that Draper Labs in Cambridge, MA (the company I work for) built the AGC. An exact replica of the real AGC sits in our Simulation Lab.
Women are historically underrepresented in some of the fields MIT excels in. MIT actively seeks a more gender balanced student body. Scan through its acceptance rates, women vs. men, and you will see this is true.
The president is a fine choice, but I do not see her as an effort to get women more involved in the MIT community.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment reminded me of an story in which a general requested a LEO reconnaissance satellite be over a particular target 24 hours a day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/magazine/27Bottl e-t.html?hp
I read the article. Kudos on using both the Spanish and English spelling of Russia in one post.
I believe the author meant to say space-to-ground attack, otherwise the sentence does not make sense in the context of the paragraph.
"[The Soviets] demonstrated the high reliability of the operational Soviet 'killer satellite'"
See first quote response. Additionally, Reliability and timeliness are not the same thing.
"The enormous advantage of an orbital system"
See first quote response. Additionally, Effectiveness and timeliness are not the same thing.
"They could even use the Moon's gravity to surreptitiously slip into the high-altitude orbits of key US observation, communications, and navigation satellites."
This is something you disagree with, not a contradiction.
So how many years have you been waiting to use that one?
"The International Sock Puppet Corporation is announcing, 'The International Sock Puppet Corporation is set to take one of its most significant steps into the digital age with the launch of HAL. This sock puppet is made of soft luxurious cashmere and will deliver comfort and style to the user and "friends" across the globe.' It's not yet the HAL of 2001, but how long before can read lips!?" 'Look this system is going to rev 80.22.6 from rev 80.22.5 and it has the same name as something ominous I have seen in a movie!' I mean seriously. This summary is just silly.
The Orbital Express program consists of two satellites: ASTRO (servicer) and NextSat (servicee). The program will demonstrate the capability for ASTRO to service NextSat (e.g., doing a fuel transfer). If all goes well then there will be a follow on program. Orbital Express is not a GEO sat. The shuttle cannot service all GEO, MEO, and most LEO satellites. GEO satellites require constant maneuvering in order to maintain their orbits. Satellites do not last 20 years (but they do orbit for that period and longer). Congrats to all those who worked on the program, and good luck with the demonstration!
http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futurei nvest/3022
How can a laser follow a ballistic trajectory?
I think it is talked about far more than it should be considering it is little more than science fiction. Prove to me it is the focus of substantial research and I will reconsider.
No, that is geostationary (GEO), a special case of geosynchronous (GSO). Wikipedia has a good description of both if you are interested.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be: "Drive 300 cars at a constant speed on the surface of a massive planet which is entirely paved. Add some more cars to the mix traveling at the exact same speed as the original 300 cars. Have someone constantly monitoring all the cars and steering the original 300 cars to avoid collisions."
Yes they can. In fact many satellites must. Google "stationkeeping".
Furthermore, the US tracks objects in space and moves satellites (civilian and military) if they are in danger of colliding with another object.
But, the orbit circumference of a GSO is 164,582 miles! The surface area of the sphere available for GSO is huge. Divide that among the ~300 operating geosynchronous satellites.
Space is huge! There are a large number of resident space objects in orbit right now and collisions are extremely rare. Even if a field of debris was scattered in a particular orbit, the launch would be tracked by the air force, the debris would be tracked by the air force, and stationkeeping would be performed by satellite owners to prevent damage to US military assets. The only real threat to satellites is a targeted attack.
Serious question. What are the differences between OS PPC and OS Moto, or OSX PPC and OSX x86, that result in a trojan, worm, or virus succeeding on one, but not the other?
Top 100 NASA primes for 1998 (Clinton): http://www.spacelawstation.com/top100.html.
Top 100 NASA primes for 2003 (Bush): http://www.spacelawstation.com/top2003.html.
First, the money is not allocated to friends of the Bush administration. Second, the firms are almost all public.
How many times should a problem be put off two years before it should be started? NASA projects are not computer science problems.
The current plan doesn't get us to the moon until 2018 anyways, and without a cheap way to keep things flowing between here and the moon, the chance of a sustained human presence is nil. So we could spend $100B building basically the same propulsion-based solutions we've always been building, or we could spend a much smaller sum on fundamental materials research.
The shuttle was the result of the same kind of arm waving arguments for unproven technologies that I hear about the space elevator. And look where that got us. Sticking to what the military and commercial space industry is using is wise (ie, liquid/solid fuel rocket propulsion). I doubt that there would be little interest in the space elevator from serious aerospace companies unless there was nothing there to be serious about.
I don't see it as a gamble, because without a drastically cheaper way to get into space, we'll just retrace the journeys of the Apollo missions. Then the whole nation will kick back, pop open a beer, mutter "Yep, still got it," and wait to do it all over again in 2050.
You know they are talking about building a moon base and going to Mars right? You may brush off the next moon mission as retracing our steps (even though you will likely play no part in it). But, those of us who work in aerospace will take great pride in what will undoubtably be the most challenging project since the space shuttle program was ramping up.
The 11 presentations are at the following location: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_co ncepts.html
Get a job at a Defense contractor. It will never be outsourced, cannot be filled by visa holders, and is always well funded.
I do not know about Apollo (I think that program might have had its funding cut), but I believe the ISS has (or will have) a complete simulator of the type you described, developed by the USA (not the country).
I would just like to point out that Draper Labs in Cambridge, MA (the company I work for) built the AGC. An exact replica of the real AGC sits in our Simulation Lab.
I agree with you that MIT is big in neuroscience. But, you did not even mention the new cogsci building!
http://web.mit.edu/evolving/projects/co gsci/
How is MIT trouncing Harvard? Do you mean at cogsci or in general?
The president is a fine choice, but I do not see her as an effort to get women more involved in the MIT community.
I agree with you they should stay out of IT, but CS is a hot field right now! http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/26/pf/college/pay/?cn n=yes