Your argument is true only for the law. For example, VISA cannot enter into a binding credit card contract with me, simply because I buy some merchandise from their website. Yet I cannot commit a murder and then plead ignorance and say I didn't know killing was illegal.
In this case, Microsoft and Others are attempting to enter binding contracts without our ability to review and agree with them or not. And the stores we buy the software don't let us return it if we don't like the license. Hence, the Microsoft Windows Refund Days.:-)
As much as I loved how the miniseries plot was a bit more involved and true to Herberts vision than the Lynch production, I REALLY loved the cinematography and the "inner dialog" that pervaded the whole movie. It gave it a quality I can't quite find the word for... ephemeral? It gave me the feeling that I was the character, thinking his thoughts, feeling his pain and wonder, versus having someone vocalize and explain something, like they did with the Miniseries.
Not to be a troll, and as one of those FREAK's who's never been in a dorm, putting his own ass out of a job: The world doesn't guarantee you a job, a career or money. If you don't like it, go cure cancer or something. I'm going to write software that undermines the ability of other companies to make money to write similar software, and rape their users. I'm going to do this simply for the control factor. That $1000 piece of hardware on my desk is MINE, all MINE, and no software vendor is going to take away my right to use and abuse it. And neither are you.
It's called capitalism at it's best. Keep making software better than the rest of us OSS FREAKs can do, and you'll continue to make money. Oh wait, maybe you'll suffer the same fate dozens of companies did when Microsoft choose to put some special thing in their OS (like cd-burning, or video playback, or web browser, or file compression) in their OS...
Yes, but in a commercial airplane, you'd HOPEFULLY have lots of training to overcome that problem. The point would be to save 50+ people in an aircraft aiming itself at the ground...
God, I hate sounding like a 12 year old child, but DUH!? I've read the entire thread, we have zero good on-orbit rescue options if a vehicle develops a problem. We have the possibility that the rescue vehicle itself will develop problems, even if we could launch one.
And it's not doubling the expense of every shuttle launch. It's the care and maintenance of a rescue vehicle that may or may not be used. Unfortunately the shuttle as it is currently designed doesn't allow for a "prep and forget" setup, like a Coast Guard rescue chopper.
And yes, catch them in the cargo bay. Without the Canadarm, and without being able to dock shuttle to shuttle without having the mating adapters preinstalled on both, it'd be the only sure way to move one astronaut from shuttle to shuttle. What would you have them do, crawl across a safety guyline like in 2010? Hell, we do this between two ships at sea on many occasions, and in that case, you have wave action moving the ships, the wires and the people around. In space, you don't have that (you have extra bulk of space suit, true) but not a dynamically changing environment that can jar you loose at any point.
If you don't think I know what the shuttle is and is not capable of, you haven't read any of my past 50 posts acknowledging that the shuttle is a failure. Complete and utter. Hell, we've never had two shuttles flying at the same time. Who's to say we could even do that, even if we could prep a shuttle in time??! And therein lies why the shuttle program must come to an end. We've never gone beyond prototype stage with these fabulous machines.
I'm pretty sure the reason they don't move the shuttle in rainstorms is due to aerodynamic loading reasons from carrying a fat brick on the back of a 747 than from any damage that rain could possibly do to the orbiter. Nevermind trying to land that thing in bad weather.
Yeah, but put it this way. If I was in that shuttle, and NASA could have put Atlantis up next to me within a week, I would have been drinking my own piss, and waiting with baited breath, and then would have taken my chances wrapped in blankets as I depressurized my shuttle and flew across the empty void of space to my saviors. Dying trying to keep on living is better than just dying.
Which is why if NASA did know about the problem at the outset, it surely didn't tell the astronauts. 16 days or more of national pain and suffering, no one wanted that.
But is argument is that the inherently unstable configuration of a lifting body/winged vehicle versus the relative stability of a conical reentry vehicle the like Soyuz or Apollo capsules makes for a more survivable vehicle.
If you don't have any wings to get torn off during reentry, then you don't have a problem. At least, that's the argument.
The computers can only do so much. If you've got external load forces ripping your wing off, how exactly is a computer going to compensate for this? It's not like they could fly inverted or something. Perhaps this answer is a completely heat shielded vehicle so extreme maneuvers like this become possible, but even that's asking for trouble?
Now let's hypothesize a little bit more, and say that if the computers had used the maneuvering thrusters earlier, instead of the elevons, and the shuttle survived to make it over Kennedy, what would have happened when they put the shuttle through the spiral descent where there are certainly going to be huge loads on said wing?
Now how about landing. Shuttle might have survived that, indeed, or rather the crew would have. Or perhaps not. Especially with lots of hypergolic propellants.
I guess what I'm arguing is that structural weakening shouldn't be a concern of the software, because the structural weakening should NEVER occur. And if it is possible to externally occur (space junk, etc) the the whole SYSTEM needs to be designed around that.
I contend that a shuttle should be able to survive the external tank being destroyed at launch. That the tank should fail, and explode in ways that increases the odds that the orbiter vehicle is kept intact. That may NEVER be possible due to acceleration loading and the lateral detonation forces of the tank itself, but it'd be an interesting exercise to see what it would take.
You're correct, most aircrashes are survivable. Right up until that huge chunk of aluminium comes crashing through your skull like a razorblade. Or that 500 pound baggage compartment crashes on your head (I'm *ALL* for not allowing overhead baggage).
Very few airplanes crash because of engine failure. Usually it's because the engine failure took out the entire tail assembly, so now you're nose heavy, with no elevators to correct for the problem. Or a rudder gets jacked over into one direction too quickly, and causes the plane to tear apart, or spin out of control.
And the fuel. Don't forget the fuel. 20,000+ pounds of fuel all waiting for a spark to ignite it. <Shudder>
But I think what the parent of your post wanted was a giant parachute scheme on the cabin, so that if the plane gets into trouble, you can just open a parachute, and float the cabin (sections of cabin) to the ground. A good idea, but probably horrible in practice, and possibly wouldn't work anyway.
I'm sorry, but if you're afraid of dying, stay in the womb.;-)
The shuttle has 5, count em 5 computers. 4 of them are identical and can vote each other out of operation. The other, only has the the deorbit and reentry programs loaded. Replacing one of the computers with something functionally similar, but smaller, and newer would be easy. The result on a failure of this computer? The other 3 would vote it out of operation, mission continues. Fly a few of these. Then replace 2 computers on each flight, you still have the 110+ mission validated 5th computer to return the orbiter home. Fly some more missions. Replace computers 3 and 4 with newer, faster, better computers. Stop the "loading tapes after each segment of mission profile".
IIRC, NASA has/had plans to update the computers, probably in a fashion very similar to this, (Nevermind extensive ground testing). I would argue however, that the computers are one of the few things that is NOT wrong with the shuttle program. Having to load tapes is a pain, true, but the computer system works, has worked, and WAS working to keep Columbia alive when external (most probably) forces killed her.
The shuttle can maneuver to pick up astronauts. Hell, all you'd have to do is tie everyone together (in pairs or tres), and catch them in the cargo bay. Shut the bay, open the airlock, let them crawl in, and do it again until you got all of em.
The last guy out of the shuttle loads a special reentry tape to put the shuttle into the pacific at a command from Houston control.
I've always thought it a good idea to maintain a standby shuttle that just needs fuel and a program to go into operation.
no, welding it would be like trying to weld the hull of a spacecraft while floating in a relatively friction free environment, but every time you reach for the torch, you spin completely around, and have absolutely nothing to hold onto.
The answer is a new shuttle program where we *CAN* maintain a few spares for emergencies.
Yes, but when you're talking about throwing away thousands of engines and launch vehicles in building what could be the biggest boondoggle of all time (the space elevator), you're talking about trillions of dollars in lost costs. Nevermind the pollution, the potential for loss of life from all the debris, the danger of in-orbit pollution.
While the next generation of reusable launch systems should focus more on say, mating the X38 CRV to a an expendable Titan or atlas launcher, work should proceed on building engines that can burn for days, and on building robust launch structures to mate those engines and cargo to.
If the capsules can be reused, and then engines are good enough, the rest is a relatively easy.
Have they revived Energiya? Last I heard it was being contemplated, and some private firm was thinking of refurbishing the Buran, but I've heard nothing for a year or so...
You'd think we could do something similar built around the SSME's, right? Aren't they still the most powerful engines in thrust to weight ratio?
I'd be willing to bet that the next few years will bring us more Deep Space 1 type ion engines to affix to points on the ISS to keep it boosting. Low thrust velocity to keep from destroying the station, extremely good fuel capacity. The problem is, will they work at the ISS orbital altitude?
I'm not a big fan of stopping progress anytime, because once you stop, it's too easy to stay stopped. I'm all for scaling back in the interests of safety, as long as a positive plan of action is in place. As much as I hate the pork that is the ISS, I don't want to see it just discarded. I want it finished and doing the job it was meant to do.
Actually he couldn't. Bill Gates doesn't have 15 Billion in cash. He's got lots of cash, and lots of stock, most of which is tied up in Microsoft. MICROSOFT could cut the check for it though.
Where do you get your estimates? How are you going to build it? Space shuttle? What launch vehicle? How many launches? With what materials? How strong do our nanotubes need to be?
Do you have a source for your plan? How many millions of miles of nanotubes are we going to need? Who is going to produce these nanotubes? How are they getting to orbit?
So let's be honest here, without a reliable CHEMICAL rocket system, your space elevator/tether is never going to get built. This planet launches what, 20-30 rockets a year, if that? 10% of them fail. That's a LOT of rockets exploding, and lots of nanotubes careening back to earth. How well do nanotubes survive reentry? How nasty will it be if a 10mile long nanotube unspools it's way across Florida or some other country? Now how about a 100 10mile long nanotubes? And how are we going to assemble that giant counterweight?
We are far from a space tether/elevator. 20 years, possibly more. Let's face it, anything over 20,000 miles long is going to weight a LOT. Asking for 50 tons per mile, probably a good bet.
I'm not really attacking your idea. What I'm attacking is the idea that somehow a space elevator is a panacea. It's not. We *WILL* need reliable rocket transportation to make it a reality. All those workers building that elevator will need transportation to and from the construction site. You won't want a robot doing it, because it might just let the tethers go, and leave you with a really nasty problem years down the road when the cable rips your beautiful tether to pieces (granted, humans can do this too). That material will need a way up into orbit, it's not going to get there itself. And you'll need to clean up LEO and GEO as well to ensure your tethers/elevators don't get destroyed. Investing in better rocket transportation systems now makes building your tether that much easier.
Well, as the earth rotates East to West, then I presume it would fall into the ocean. Unless it were like a rubber band, in which case all bets are off!:-P
One other thing: I feel bad about that busload of kids that gets disconnected by a break in the line from a passing (impacting) meteoroid, and who find themselves stranded in a decaying orbit.
I don't know. 100 years ago, everyone in the world would have thought you a fuel for stepping into a steel can carrying 40,000 pounds of jet fuel.
And wrt your space tether plan, let it get severed at 300 miles, and it's coming back to earth. And if it's made of a strong material, it's not going to burn up. It's going to make a big hole.
Neither solution is perfect. The best solution is a combination of both. Getting a space tether to throw things into polar orbits or into planar orbits that aren't in line with Earth's equator will require rocket technology. Might as well have the best rocket technology we can, right?
Since every bit of material that makes a good space tether a good space tether also would make a lightweight spacecraft and (possibly) a good engine, why not continue building rockets and better engines while we wait for the magic bullet to arrive in the form of 20,000 mile per day carbon nanotube production lines?
Excuse me, but Columbia was barely a 1/3 of it's way through it's design lifetime. The major *PROBLEM* of the space shuttle, was that we were using what is inarguably a research prototype as if it were a production model. There was never a followon evolution to the Shuttle to make it an order of magnitude safer. No bottom-up redesign of the SSME's to increase reliability. Granted, the tank got lighter, the airframes of it's successor craft got lighter, and it got minor incremental improvements, but the parts that required such heavy maintenance never got redesigned so that you didn't have to completely revalidate the entire system for launch.
Sorry about your job, buddy. But let's face it, the X-33 needed cancelling. If the X-33 was so good, the contractor should have continued to a demonstration model of a flight-test article. Fact was, it was entirely too high a risk to attempt to manufacture.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is true only for the law. For example, VISA cannot enter into a binding credit card contract with me, simply because I buy some merchandise from their website. Yet I cannot commit a murder and then plead ignorance and say I didn't know killing was illegal.
:-)
In this case, Microsoft and Others are attempting to enter binding contracts without our ability to review and agree with them or not. And the stores we buy the software don't let us return it if we don't like the license. Hence, the Microsoft Windows Refund Days.
-Chris
As much as I loved how the miniseries plot was a bit more involved and true to Herberts vision than the Lynch production, I REALLY loved the cinematography and the "inner dialog" that pervaded the whole movie. It gave it a quality I can't quite find the word for... ephemeral? It gave me the feeling that I was the character, thinking his thoughts, feeling his pain and wonder, versus having someone vocalize and explain something, like they did with the Miniseries.
Not to be a troll, and as one of those FREAK's who's never been in a dorm, putting his own ass out of a job: The world doesn't guarantee you a job, a career or money. If you don't like it, go cure cancer or something. I'm going to write software that undermines the ability of other companies to make money to write similar software, and rape their users. I'm going to do this simply for the control factor. That $1000 piece of hardware on my desk is MINE, all MINE, and no software vendor is going to take away my right to use and abuse it. And neither are you.
;-)
It's called capitalism at it's best. Keep making software better than the rest of us OSS FREAKs can do, and you'll continue to make money. Oh wait, maybe you'll suffer the same fate dozens of companies did when Microsoft choose to put some special thing in their OS (like cd-burning, or video playback, or web browser, or file compression) in their OS...
-Chris
Yes, but in a commercial airplane, you'd HOPEFULLY have lots of training to overcome that problem. The point would be to save 50+ people in an aircraft aiming itself at the ground...
-Chris
God, I hate sounding like a 12 year old child, but DUH!? I've read the entire thread, we have zero good on-orbit rescue options if a vehicle develops a problem. We have the possibility that the rescue vehicle itself will develop problems, even if we could launch one.
And it's not doubling the expense of every shuttle launch. It's the care and maintenance of a rescue vehicle that may or may not be used. Unfortunately the shuttle as it is currently designed doesn't allow for a "prep and forget" setup, like a Coast Guard rescue chopper.
And yes, catch them in the cargo bay. Without the Canadarm, and without being able to dock shuttle to shuttle without having the mating adapters preinstalled on both, it'd be the only sure way to move one astronaut from shuttle to shuttle. What would you have them do, crawl across a safety guyline like in 2010? Hell, we do this between two ships at sea on many occasions, and in that case, you have wave action moving the ships, the wires and the people around. In space, you don't have that (you have extra bulk of space suit, true) but not a dynamically changing environment that can jar you loose at any point.
If you don't think I know what the shuttle is and is not capable of, you haven't read any of my past 50 posts acknowledging that the shuttle is a failure. Complete and utter. Hell, we've never had two shuttles flying at the same time. Who's to say we could even do that, even if we could prep a shuttle in time??! And therein lies why the shuttle program must come to an end. We've never gone beyond prototype stage with these fabulous machines.
I'm pretty sure the reason they don't move the shuttle in rainstorms is due to aerodynamic loading reasons from carrying a fat brick on the back of a 747 than from any damage that rain could possibly do to the orbiter. Nevermind trying to land that thing in bad weather.
-Chris
Yeah, but put it this way. If I was in that shuttle, and NASA could have put Atlantis up next to me within a week, I would have been drinking my own piss, and waiting with baited breath, and then would have taken my chances wrapped in blankets as I depressurized my shuttle and flew across the empty void of space to my saviors. Dying trying to keep on living is better than just dying.
Which is why if NASA did know about the problem at the outset, it surely didn't tell the astronauts. 16 days or more of national pain and suffering, no one wanted that.
-Chris
But is argument is that the inherently unstable configuration of a lifting body/winged vehicle versus the relative stability of a conical reentry vehicle the like Soyuz or Apollo capsules makes for a more survivable vehicle.
If you don't have any wings to get torn off during reentry, then you don't have a problem.
At least, that's the argument.
Right, but they COULD move up to radiation hardended pentiums and some older 32 MB SIMMS and be a LOT better off. :-)
The computers can only do so much. If you've got external load forces ripping your wing off, how exactly is a computer going to compensate for this? It's not like they could fly inverted or something. Perhaps this answer is a completely heat shielded vehicle so extreme maneuvers like this become possible, but even that's asking for trouble?
Now let's hypothesize a little bit more, and say that if the computers had used the maneuvering thrusters earlier, instead of the elevons, and the shuttle survived to make it over Kennedy, what would have happened when they put the shuttle through the spiral descent where there are certainly going to be huge loads on said wing?
Now how about landing. Shuttle might have survived that, indeed, or rather the crew would have. Or perhaps not. Especially with lots of hypergolic propellants.
I guess what I'm arguing is that structural weakening shouldn't be a concern of the software, because the structural weakening should NEVER occur. And if it is possible to externally occur (space junk, etc) the the whole SYSTEM needs to be designed around that.
I contend that a shuttle should be able to survive the external tank being destroyed at launch. That the tank should fail, and explode in ways that increases the odds that the orbiter vehicle is kept intact. That may NEVER be possible due to acceleration loading and the lateral detonation forces of the tank itself, but it'd be an interesting exercise to see what it would take.
You're correct, most aircrashes are survivable. Right up until that huge chunk of aluminium comes crashing through your skull like a razorblade. Or that 500 pound baggage compartment crashes on your head (I'm *ALL* for not allowing overhead baggage).
;-)
Very few airplanes crash because of engine failure. Usually it's because the engine failure took out the entire tail assembly, so now you're nose heavy, with no elevators to correct for the problem. Or a rudder gets jacked over into one direction too quickly, and causes the plane to tear apart, or spin out of control.
And the fuel. Don't forget the fuel. 20,000+ pounds of fuel all waiting for a spark to ignite it. <Shudder>
But I think what the parent of your post wanted was a giant parachute scheme on the cabin, so that if the plane gets into trouble, you can just open a parachute, and float the cabin (sections of cabin) to the ground. A good idea, but probably horrible in practice, and possibly wouldn't work anyway.
I'm sorry, but if you're afraid of dying, stay in the womb.
-Chris
The shuttle has 5, count em 5 computers. 4 of them are identical and can vote each other out of operation. The other, only has the the deorbit and reentry programs loaded. Replacing one of the computers with something functionally similar, but smaller, and newer would be easy. The result on a failure of this computer? The other 3 would vote it out of operation, mission continues. Fly a few of these. Then replace 2 computers on each flight, you still have the 110+ mission validated 5th computer to return the orbiter home. Fly some more missions. Replace computers 3 and 4 with newer, faster, better computers. Stop the "loading tapes after each segment of mission profile".
IIRC, NASA has/had plans to update the computers, probably in a fashion very similar to this, (Nevermind extensive ground testing). I would argue however, that the computers are one of the few things that is NOT wrong with the shuttle program. Having to load tapes is a pain, true, but the computer system works, has worked, and WAS working to keep Columbia alive when external (most probably) forces killed her.
The shuttle can maneuver to pick up astronauts. Hell, all you'd have to do is tie everyone together (in pairs or tres), and catch them in the cargo bay. Shut the bay, open the airlock, let them crawl in, and do it again until you got all of em.
The last guy out of the shuttle loads a special reentry tape to put the shuttle into the pacific at a command from Houston control.
I've always thought it a good idea to maintain a standby shuttle that just needs fuel and a program to go into operation.
no, welding it would be like trying to weld the hull of a spacecraft while floating in a relatively friction free environment, but every time you reach for the torch, you spin completely around, and have absolutely nothing to hold onto.
The answer is a new shuttle program where we *CAN* maintain a few spares for emergencies.
Yes, but when you're talking about throwing away thousands of engines and launch vehicles in building what could be the biggest boondoggle of all time (the space elevator), you're talking about trillions of dollars in lost costs. Nevermind the pollution, the potential for loss of life from all the debris, the danger of in-orbit pollution.
While the next generation of reusable launch systems should focus more on say, mating the X38 CRV to a an expendable Titan or atlas launcher, work should proceed on building engines that can burn for days, and on building robust launch structures to mate those engines and cargo to.
If the capsules can be reused, and then engines are good enough, the rest is a relatively easy.
-Chris
Time to rig up a new entry for the Jargon File?
I'd rather just drop a whole bunch of 2 ton ball bearings on him. :-)
Have they revived Energiya? Last I heard it was being contemplated, and some private firm was thinking of refurbishing the Buran, but I've heard nothing for a year or so...
You'd think we could do something similar built around the SSME's, right? Aren't they still the most powerful engines in thrust to weight ratio?
I'd be willing to bet that the next few years will bring us more Deep Space 1 type ion engines to affix to points on the ISS to keep it boosting. Low thrust velocity to keep from destroying the station, extremely good fuel capacity. The problem is, will they work at the ISS orbital altitude?
I'm not a big fan of stopping progress anytime, because once you stop, it's too easy to stay stopped. I'm all for scaling back in the interests of safety, as long as a positive plan of action is in place. As much as I hate the pork that is the ISS, I don't want to see it just discarded. I want it finished and doing the job it was meant to do.
Actually he couldn't. Bill Gates doesn't have 15 Billion in cash. He's got lots of cash, and lots of stock, most of which is tied up in Microsoft. MICROSOFT could cut the check for it though.
Where do you get your estimates? How are you going to build it? Space shuttle? What launch vehicle? How many launches? With what materials? How strong do our nanotubes need to be?
Do you have a source for your plan? How many millions of miles of nanotubes are we going to need? Who is going to produce these nanotubes? How are they getting to orbit?
So let's be honest here, without a reliable CHEMICAL rocket system, your space elevator/tether is never going to get built. This planet launches what, 20-30 rockets a year, if that? 10% of them fail. That's a LOT of rockets exploding, and lots of nanotubes careening back to earth. How well do nanotubes survive reentry? How nasty will it be if a 10mile long nanotube unspools it's way across Florida or some other country? Now how about a 100 10mile long nanotubes? And how are we going to assemble that giant counterweight?
We are far from a space tether/elevator. 20 years, possibly more. Let's face it, anything over 20,000 miles long is going to weight a LOT. Asking for 50 tons per mile, probably a good bet.
I'm not really attacking your idea. What I'm attacking is the idea that somehow a space elevator is a panacea. It's not. We *WILL* need reliable rocket transportation to make it a reality. All those workers building that elevator will need transportation to and from the construction site. You won't want a robot doing it, because it might just let the tethers go, and leave you with a really nasty problem years down the road when the cable rips your beautiful tether to pieces (granted, humans can do this too). That material will need a way up into orbit, it's not going to get there itself. And you'll need to clean up LEO and GEO as well to ensure your tethers/elevators don't get destroyed. Investing in better rocket transportation systems now makes building your tether that much easier.
Well, as the earth rotates East to West, then I presume it would fall into the ocean. Unless it were like a rubber band, in which case all bets are off! :-P
-Chris
One other thing: I feel bad about that busload of kids that gets disconnected by a break in the line from a passing (impacting) meteoroid, and who find themselves stranded in a decaying orbit.
I don't know. 100 years ago, everyone in the world would have thought you a fuel for stepping into a steel can carrying 40,000 pounds of jet fuel.
And wrt your space tether plan, let it get severed at 300 miles, and it's coming back to earth. And if it's made of a strong material, it's not going to burn up. It's going to make a big hole.
Neither solution is perfect. The best solution is a combination of both. Getting a space tether to throw things into polar orbits or into planar orbits that aren't in line with Earth's equator will require rocket technology. Might as well have the best rocket technology we can, right?
Since every bit of material that makes a good space tether a good space tether also would make a lightweight spacecraft and (possibly) a good engine, why not continue building rockets and better engines while we wait for the magic bullet to arrive in the form of 20,000 mile per day carbon nanotube production lines?
-Chris
Which echoes what I've heard about the state of Russian propulsion technology pretty closely.
:-)
Yes, I've been having a blast too. I guess I don't make much of a secret that I really liked what the USSR was doing with Energiya.
Excuse me, but Columbia was barely a 1/3 of it's way through it's design lifetime. The major *PROBLEM* of the space shuttle, was that we were using what is inarguably a research prototype as if it were a production model. There was never a followon evolution to the Shuttle to make it an order of magnitude safer. No bottom-up redesign of the SSME's to increase reliability. Granted, the tank got lighter, the airframes of it's successor craft got lighter, and it got minor incremental improvements, but the parts that required such heavy maintenance never got redesigned so that you didn't have to completely revalidate the entire system for launch.
Sorry about your job, buddy. But let's face it, the X-33 needed cancelling. If the X-33 was so good, the contractor should have continued to a demonstration model of a flight-test article. Fact was, it was entirely too high a risk to attempt to manufacture.