I agree with 80% of what you say. I just wanted to point out that I think you mean He-3 (Helium 3). H3 would be Hydrogen 3, better known as Tritium. Tritium will be useful for first generation fusion power generators, but Helium 3 is a much cleaner power source
While I support going to the Moon, I don't think the "stepping stone" arguement is valid, for the reasons you list above. As Zubrin points out in his Case for Mars, greater delta v (change in velocity, which equates to fuel) is required to get from Earth to Moon to Mars than Earth to Mars. However, it's not the only reason to go. Why go:
"Dark" or Far side of the Moon. Great for radio astronomy because you have a giant rock (the Moon) permenantly between the disk and the source of noice (Earth radio).
Abundant source of Helium-3 He3 is an isotope of Helium with only one neutron. Fusion research currently deals with Dueterium (D)-Tritium (T) (Hydrogen with 1 neutron and with 2 neutrons respectively) fussion which is "dirty" in the respect that is spews radioactive neutrons. D-He3 fusion, on the other hand, has very little radioactivity (most of it due to unspent fuel). Helium 3 is relatively rare on Earth, but could meat current power needs for 100 years (IIRC). By that time, we should have the tech to scope He3 out of Jupiter's atmosphere.
low-G (not zero/micro-G) research. It has applications.
retirement? low-G is easier on the heart & bones withouth the pesky decalicification.
Solid base for manufacturing. All the benefits of zero-G manufacturing, but something solid to bolt the machinary to.
An eclipse lasts a few minutes. It would take at least that long for the heat trapped in the rocks to be released into space. Eclipses would be an inconvience (necessitating battery storage and running the base at minumum power)
Someone has it out for me today. I was stating the fact that this is inherently expensive and has limitations relating to physics. And I get modded a troll. Can I get some M2 metamoderation here?
Cryogenic freezing isn't even remotely cold compared to what physicists mean by supercooled. Cryogenics "works" by freezing things below the temperatures bacteria and other rotting agents can live.
1) Space isn't absolute zero. It hovers around 3 kelvins (three degrees Celsius above absolute zero)
2)Really weird phyics like this doesn't start happening until things get really cold. Think tenths or hundredths of a degree above absolute zero. Of course, since energy and temperature are related concepts, at absolute zero, there is no energy, and nothing moves.
3)Relativity is still in effect. In fact it makes a lot of sense here. Less temperature = less energy (e). the speed of light (c) decreases at the same rate as the square root of e. At asbolute zero, e=0 c=0 m=infinity. Time has no meaning to light. Time only slows down/speeds up when your velocity changes with respect to the speed of light. If you were in the supercooled state, time would in fact slow down. The formula for time dialation is here: t'=t(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2
4) At 1 Kelvin (still colder than space) everything works normally.
5)At ultracold tempearture, Einstein predicted that really funky things would happen. Matter as we think of it tends to break down. It's called the Bose-Einstein condensate.
The speed of a bicycle going about 12 mph, IIRC. I remember reading about the experiement in high school, although SoB's weren't used as a unit of velocity measurement back then.
Also the speed of light is 3E8 km/s in a vacuum. It travels slower through matter. The denser the matter, the slower the speed of light. In that experiment, light was shined through a supercooled gel, and took a length of time to travel across so great that it meant light had traveled at a velocity of ~12 mph
Site has popups, so here's the text of the article
Scientists learn to process information with 'frozen light'
Scientists at Harvard University have shown how ultra-cold atoms can be used to freeze and control light to form the "core" - or central processing unit - of an optical computer. Optical computers would transport information ten times faster than traditional electronic devices, smashing the intrinsic speed limit of silicon technology.
Striking research and developments
News archive
This new research could be a major breakthrough in the quest to create super-fast computers that use light instead of electrons to process information. Professor Lene Hau is one of the world's foremost authorities on "slow light". Her research group became famous for slowing down light, which normally travels at 186,000 miles per second, to less than the speed of a bicycle.
Using the same apparatus, which contains a cloud of ultra-cold sodium atoms, they have even managed to freeze light altogether. Professor Hau says this could have applications in memory storage for a future generation of optical computers.
But Professor Hau's most recent research addresses the issue of optical computers head-on. She has calculated that ultra-cold atoms known as Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can be used to perform "controlled coherent processing" with light. In ordinary matter, the amplitude and phase of a light pulse would be smeared out, and any information content would be destroyed. Hau's work on slow light, however, has proved experimentally that these attributes can be preserved in a BEC. Such a device might one day become the CPU of an optical computer.
Traditional electronic computers are advancing ever closer to their theoretical limits for size and speed. Some scientists believe that optical computing will one day unleash a new revolution in smaller and faster computers.
Professor Lene Hau is Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics & Professor of Physics at Harvard University.
And this means absolutely nothing to the non-supercomputer world. Light doesn't slow itself down for free. Freezing light for this proccess likely takes the expenditure equal to the GDP of a small country. At best, in the next 50 years there will be 2 frozen light optiocal supercomputers
However, Comcast, or whoever you get your cable from gets the pricethey get for a channel by guaranteeing a certain number of subscribers. If you could pick each channel individually, they couldn't make that guarantee as large of number, and economies of scale would break down. It's possible that subscribing to the 10 channels you do watch would cost more than subscribing to a 50 channel package with 40 you don't.
Granted the quality of the actual content varies a good deal, but technology is the single biggest holdback, err second biggest holdback. Biggest holdback is getting enough people to work the equipment and be in front of the camera.
Most of our scenes are shot at night and/or in cars. Both of which are difficult to shoot. Lighting is a major problem. Glare. Wind. In the film world, "low budget" can mean $100,000 dollars. We simply aren't that serious about it. We might be willing to commit $200 or $300, but to quote Alton Brown "the only single use tool in my kitchen is a fire extinguisher."
I know people who run fairly successful internet radio stations (one has ~1500 listeners), my girlfiend works as a production assistant for NJN, and my friends like to try our hand at amatuer movies for our own consumption. TV & movies are a lot more technically difficult than radio. I'm the first to admit that our movies are horrible, mostly because we don't have professional-grade cameras, lighting, and audio equipment.
At best this will create a lot of 640x320 webcam videos being viewed by noone, and a couple semi-pro's showing their content before going "big time."
Frankly, that's a retarded attitude, but a lot of lazy people share it...when you get your "refund" is... retarded. Not only do you lose out on the interest
It's a matter of convience. Does going to 7-11 and picking up a sandwhich for lunch instead of making your own make you lazy or retarded?
My total return is usually under $1000. If I had that $1000 in the bank for a full year in a CD (which doesn't reflect the reality of the situation in the least), I'd earn $25 Hardly worth it for the aggravation of adjusting my withholding every time I switch jobs (my day job is a temp employee and got paid 5 different rates over the course of last year)
One the one hand, I can see where the author is coming from. I'd think if Apple was going to grab a considerable marketshare of the desktop marketshare (Techwhack reports it at 2.9% right now). However, the Mac Mini seems to be a popular box and could help to take another bite out of the market.
On the other hand, I think the single biggest reason (beyond that users have "grown up" with Windows) that Linux is such a minor player in the desktop market is lack of applications, a problem plauging the Apple platform. I read an article a few months back (no link sorry) where the author claimed that 5% marketshare would be the tipping point for linux, where it would snowball. Once linux gets enough marketshare, software manufacturers have to release linux ports or risk alienating a strong userbase. Once there are major applications for linux, more users will use it. More users mean more applications, which mean more users.
While I applaud major software manufacturers porting their apps to Linux as much as anyone, this is probably the least needed port in existence. There are dozens of pdf readers available for Linux with the same usability as Adobe Acrobat Reader. If Adobe realeased a Linux port of Acrobat Pro, or any of their graphics or video editing apps, I'd be much more excited.
But three cheers for Adobe, hopefully they'll take that next step.
Re:Symbolic, Of Course
on
Hope for Hubble
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The "current Hubble spare parts" make up only a small portion of the total parts that go into the satellite. One part there is no spare, is the primary mirror, which is the single biggest cost of the telescope outside of launch costs.
Who's to say that the inverter in question was only ever used in one model of LCD? I would assume any LCD with the same power requirements could use the same parts.
As far as the minimum order, tell them you are expanding into the sector and want the part of a prototype
It's not like a replacement is sitting in NASA's garage waiting to go up. Some of the parts that would go into a replacement have been built, but nowhere near a majority of the parts. Add in testing, hardening, etc. It's 2, 3 years minimun before the replacement goes up
If the White House burned down and it was discovered that it would only cost a little more to build a new White House over in Arlington then to rebuild it at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which would you choose?
The Hubble Space Telescope stands for everything NASA has done right in the last 12 years. At the completion of STS-61, the mission to replace the warped mirror, NASA's approval rating was at it's highest since the launch of Columbia. Possibly since the Apollo missions. Besides saving a $1.5 billion dollar investment. The mission proved that servicing missions could be done. It opened the door to the idea that in orbit manufacutring and repairs weren't just science fiction.
Since then Hubble has increased our understanding of the universe 10 fold. Its more than just a space telescope, it's a national monument. I think every effort should be made to keep it in working order until the technology exists to safely return it to Earth intact so it can be displayed at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with 80% of what you say. I just wanted to point out that I think you mean He-3 (Helium 3). H3 would be Hydrogen 3, better known as Tritium. Tritium will be useful for first generation fusion power generators, but Helium 3 is a much cleaner power source
Under the Moon Treaty, the Moon is international domain, just like Antartica
An eclipse lasts a few minutes. It would take at least that long for the heat trapped in the rocks to be released into space. Eclipses would be an inconvience (necessitating battery storage and running the base at minumum power)
And I wasn't trying to be funny. I was trying to be information on insightful.
Someone has it out for me today. I was stating the fact that this is inherently expensive and has limitations relating to physics. And I get modded a troll. Can I get some M2 metamoderation here?
Cryogenic freezing isn't even remotely cold compared to what physicists mean by supercooled. Cryogenics "works" by freezing things below the temperatures bacteria and other rotting agents can live.
oops, pesky "k" I think I just sent the Mars Polar Orbiter careening to it's death
How is this redundant overrated? Nobody else posted the text of the article. Is giving others a pop-up free version of the article now bad??
2)Really weird phyics like this doesn't start happening until things get really cold. Think tenths or hundredths of a degree above absolute zero. Of course, since energy and temperature are related concepts, at absolute zero, there is no energy, and nothing moves.
3)Relativity is still in effect. In fact it makes a lot of sense here. Less temperature = less energy (e). the speed of light (c) decreases at the same rate as the square root of e. At asbolute zero, e=0 c=0 m=infinity. Time has no meaning to light. Time only slows down/speeds up when your velocity changes with respect to the speed of light. If you were in the supercooled state, time would in fact slow down. The formula for time dialation is here: t'=t(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2
4) At 1 Kelvin (still colder than space) everything works normally.
5)At ultracold tempearture, Einstein predicted that really funky things would happen. Matter as we think of it tends to break down. It's called the Bose-Einstein condensate.
Also the speed of light is 3E8 km/s in a vacuum. It travels slower through matter. The denser the matter, the slower the speed of light. In that experiment, light was shined through a supercooled gel, and took a length of time to travel across so great that it meant light had traveled at a velocity of ~12 mph
Scientists at Harvard University have shown how ultra-cold atoms can be used to freeze and control light to form the "core" - or central processing unit - of an optical computer. Optical computers would transport information ten times faster than traditional electronic devices, smashing the intrinsic speed limit of silicon technology.
Striking research and developments
News archive
This new research could be a major breakthrough in the quest to create super-fast computers that use light instead of electrons to process information. Professor Lene Hau is one of the world's foremost authorities on "slow light". Her research group became famous for slowing down light, which normally travels at 186,000 miles per second, to less than the speed of a bicycle.
Using the same apparatus, which contains a cloud of ultra-cold sodium atoms, they have even managed to freeze light altogether. Professor Hau says this could have applications in memory storage for a future generation of optical computers.
But Professor Hau's most recent research addresses the issue of optical computers head-on. She has calculated that ultra-cold atoms known as Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can be used to perform "controlled coherent processing" with light. In ordinary matter, the amplitude and phase of a light pulse would be smeared out, and any information content would be destroyed. Hau's work on slow light, however, has proved experimentally that these attributes can be preserved in a BEC. Such a device might one day become the CPU of an optical computer.
Traditional electronic computers are advancing ever closer to their theoretical limits for size and speed. Some scientists believe that optical computing will one day unleash a new revolution in smaller and faster computers.
Professor Lene Hau is Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics & Professor of Physics at Harvard University.
And this means absolutely nothing to the non-supercomputer world. Light doesn't slow itself down for free. Freezing light for this proccess likely takes the expenditure equal to the GDP of a small country. At best, in the next 50 years there will be 2 frozen light optiocal supercomputers
However, Comcast, or whoever you get your cable from gets the pricethey get for a channel by guaranteeing a certain number of subscribers. If you could pick each channel individually, they couldn't make that guarantee as large of number, and economies of scale would break down. It's possible that subscribing to the 10 channels you do watch would cost more than subscribing to a 50 channel package with 40 you don't.
Most of our scenes are shot at night and/or in cars. Both of which are difficult to shoot. Lighting is a major problem. Glare. Wind. In the film world, "low budget" can mean $100,000 dollars. We simply aren't that serious about it. We might be willing to commit $200 or $300, but to quote Alton Brown "the only single use tool in my kitchen is a fire extinguisher."
Sorry, we already killed love
At best this will create a lot of 640x320 webcam videos being viewed by noone, and a couple semi-pro's showing their content before going "big time."
It's a matter of convience. Does going to 7-11 and picking up a sandwhich for lunch instead of making your own make you lazy or retarded?
My total return is usually under $1000. If I had that $1000 in the bank for a full year in a CD (which doesn't reflect the reality of the situation in the least), I'd earn $25 Hardly worth it for the aggravation of adjusting my withholding every time I switch jobs (my day job is a temp employee and got paid 5 different rates over the course of last year)
On the other hand, I think the single biggest reason (beyond that users have "grown up" with Windows) that Linux is such a minor player in the desktop market is lack of applications, a problem plauging the Apple platform. I read an article a few months back (no link sorry) where the author claimed that 5% marketshare would be the tipping point for linux, where it would snowball. Once linux gets enough marketshare, software manufacturers have to release linux ports or risk alienating a strong userbase. Once there are major applications for linux, more users will use it. More users mean more applications, which mean more users.
But three cheers for Adobe, hopefully they'll take that next step.
The "current Hubble spare parts" make up only a small portion of the total parts that go into the satellite. One part there is no spare, is the primary mirror, which is the single biggest cost of the telescope outside of launch costs.
As far as the minimum order, tell them you are expanding into the sector and want the part of a prototype
File the neccessary paperwork with your state/province/country to become a LCD OEM. Then contact the company and order the part.
It's not like a replacement is sitting in NASA's garage waiting to go up. Some of the parts that would go into a replacement have been built, but nowhere near a majority of the parts. Add in testing, hardening, etc. It's 2, 3 years minimun before the replacement goes up
The Hubble Space Telescope stands for everything NASA has done right in the last 12 years. At the completion of STS-61, the mission to replace the warped mirror, NASA's approval rating was at it's highest since the launch of Columbia. Possibly since the Apollo missions. Besides saving a $1.5 billion dollar investment. The mission proved that servicing missions could be done. It opened the door to the idea that in orbit manufacutring and repairs weren't just science fiction.
Since then Hubble has increased our understanding of the universe 10 fold. Its more than just a space telescope, it's a national monument. I think every effort should be made to keep it in working order until the technology exists to safely return it to Earth intact so it can be displayed at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum