Yes it's easy to criticize megacorps, but Monsanto employs a LOT of people where I live. Not only that, they really put a lot of money into science - have a large payroll for scientists, researches, lab workers. They are a biotech driver. It's better to have them here than another country for many reasons. One is that we CAN criticize them here.
I'll just mention for the materials science, they just got a serious freezer and a serious furnace on board so they'll be doing tons of materials research with those. Lots of people and companies are interested in using those and some cool stuff can come out of that research.
They can land it by remote. However, since the Shuttle program is nearing the end, they would just re-enter it over the Pacific instead. The Shuttle can't make it to the moon by a longshot.
Adaptive optics still have a long way to go and like anonymous said, we can make a bigger space telescope. Also, there is a lot you just can't see period with ground based telescopes so it's definitely worth it to put up a new one (JWST) once Hubble is done. Heck, there might even be a case to keep Hubble running even after JWST gets up there whenever that might be. They are still using 30+ year old telescopes on the ground from what I've read since there is so much demand for time on them.
They can do this since 2006. I think the astronauts have been actually doing things on every space shuttle mission so far but it is cool to have that capability for whatever reason it might be needed. I don't know at what point building a bunch of sophisticated robots becomes cheaper then sending people (safety requirements and all that) but I think employing and training people is cheaper at the moment and will be for quite a while yet for certain things. There are roles for both.
Yeah, exciting stuff, but Ed Weiler himself just said at the recent Atlantis post launch news conference something to the effect that he always hears about new telescopes that will be xx times better than Hubble, but you have to take those with a huge grain of salt coming from land based telescopes. There is a lot of buzz about adaptive optics but not much substance yet and you can't see UV light from the ground.
agreed to an equal partnership to build the worldâ(TM)s largest telescope
What about that huge radio telescope in Puerto Rico or South America or wherever the hell it is that's built into a mountain? I guess they mean optical?
Oh just to add, they have learned a lot about what it takes to drive rovers on Mars to optimize opportunities for discovery and how to be careful about things which is a huge plus for future robotic exploration.
Well, it is Mars. It's probably tough to make an estimate. They really could have gotten stuck in soft soil or covered by a dust storm and died at any point.
To be fair, the "next rover to mars" is a LOT MORE than what Spirit and Opportunity are, but it's definitely cheaper to use the resources we have there now. That's why we are servicing Hubble to make it into pretty much a new telescope.
I just read those paragraphs a couple times and it does sound like that's what he's saying. You don't have feedom in the software if it's on someone else's server.
If you have a web site hosted by a company you pay $3 a month to and they use Apache or whatever to serve your pages, you don't have some freedom that you could have if you hosted it yourself. You can't patch it yourself or modify it etc.
"If all the software running on the server is released free software, that would enable you to set up a your own similar server if you wanted to; but you still have no control when you use the server that isn't yours. The only solution to this problem is not to use someone else's server to do your own computing on your own data. Do it on your own computer, using your own copy of a free program."
Is this bad? Realistically there are plenty of situations where people get more benefit out of something running from someone else's server than if they had full freedom and the benefit (burden) of running it on their own server.
Best of both worlds would be having something hosted on someone else's server, yet they allow you to modify the software that is run. This is just plain infeasible and if something like that did exist then I'm sure it would cost way more than normally.
I read it has been available in Europe for a while (the new one) and it gets very good mileage and power for a car in it's class, one of the best. The diesel got 65mpg supposedly and a non-diesel got 45 or something.
So there is no net energy gain or loss once the water is back where it came from... and how do you make energy again? Both processes lose energy because turbines and pumps aren't 100% efficient, and you're not gaining a think anyway so you're losing both ways.
One thing that would work is having a really big tide pool or tidal area and harnessing tidal water when it comes in and goes out.
A lot are downsampled, but I'm guessing the HD footage is available in some way. I just picked the first couple search results.
I don't know about the tape machine but I read they had to restore one of the only available machines left to working order before beginning at all. Luckily they managed to fix it. I'm guessing you can't just use any read head or machine for any tape.. either that or it does processing that would be expensive and infeasible to recreate in software. I'm sure they would have gone an easier route if there was one. These aren't dumb people. The tape reader didn't cost them $300k (or anything) so there's no point to including that.
As for a lunar rover, lunar orbiting robotic satellites would be a much better way if you want to film the entire surface of the Moon. JAXA's Kaguya is doing that and the Indian Chandraayan I believe too. For example, Mars is bigger than the Moon, but the Mars Rovers haven't seen that much of Mars as an overall percentage.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is a Moon orbiting mission scheduled to launch in May 2009. The first mission of NASA's Robotic Lunar Exploration Program, it is designed to map the surface of the Moon and characterize future landing sites in terms of terrain roughness, usable resources, and radiation environment with the ultimate goal of facilitating the return of humans to the Moon.
It will have a high-res camera. I don't see any specs though.
Yeah, man that would just be cool to see it flying around powered!... since it lands unpowered. "We could use all this liquid hydrogen and oxygen still in our external fuel tank to continue into orbit... BUT we've decided to try flying around, woooo! VAB fly by!
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Buick is very popular as a high end car brand there. So maybe GM and their Australian Holden.
Yes it's easy to criticize megacorps, but Monsanto employs a LOT of people where I live. Not only that, they really put a lot of money into science - have a large payroll for scientists, researches, lab workers. They are a biotech driver. It's better to have them here than another country for many reasons. One is that we CAN criticize them here.
I'll just mention for the materials science, they just got a serious freezer and a serious furnace on board so they'll be doing tons of materials research with those. Lots of people and companies are interested in using those and some cool stuff can come out of that research.
Does that have crunch berries?
BAWITDABADABANG...
-Kid Rock
(damn caps filter)
Yeah maybe an app store in English (or other written and spoken language) would have more users.
(Note - I'm not against command line tools. It's just that most people don't use them.)
No, more like the ones that turned into... Nazi!
well, it was going to get there eventually
Don't want bloat? Don't use an IDE.
http://www.crimsoneditor.com/
1. heart attack ...
They can land it by remote. However, since the Shuttle program is nearing the end, they would just re-enter it over the Pacific instead. The Shuttle can't make it to the moon by a longshot.
Adaptive optics still have a long way to go and like anonymous said, we can make a bigger space telescope. Also, there is a lot you just can't see period with ground based telescopes so it's definitely worth it to put up a new one (JWST) once Hubble is done. Heck, there might even be a case to keep Hubble running even after JWST gets up there whenever that might be. They are still using 30+ year old telescopes on the ground from what I've read since there is so much demand for time on them.
They can do this since 2006. I think the astronauts have been actually doing things on every space shuttle mission so far but it is cool to have that capability for whatever reason it might be needed. I don't know at what point building a bunch of sophisticated robots becomes cheaper then sending people (safety requirements and all that) but I think employing and training people is cheaper at the moment and will be for quite a while yet for certain things. There are roles for both.
Yeah, this is why they do in-flight inspections every flight now.
Yeah, exciting stuff, but Ed Weiler himself just said at the recent Atlantis post launch news conference something to the effect that he always hears about new telescopes that will be xx times better than Hubble, but you have to take those with a huge grain of salt coming from land based telescopes. There is a lot of buzz about adaptive optics but not much substance yet and you can't see UV light from the ground.
What about that huge radio telescope in Puerto Rico or South America or wherever the hell it is that's built into a mountain? I guess they mean optical?
Oh just to add, they have learned a lot about what it takes to drive rovers on Mars to optimize opportunities for discovery and how to be careful about things which is a huge plus for future robotic exploration.
Well, it is Mars. It's probably tough to make an estimate. They really could have gotten stuck in soft soil or covered by a dust storm and died at any point.
To be fair, the "next rover to mars" is a LOT MORE than what Spirit and Opportunity are, but it's definitely cheaper to use the resources we have there now. That's why we are servicing Hubble to make it into pretty much a new telescope.
I just read those paragraphs a couple times and it does sound like that's what he's saying. You don't have feedom in the software if it's on someone else's server.
If you have a web site hosted by a company you pay $3 a month to and they use Apache or whatever to serve your pages, you don't have some freedom that you could have if you hosted it yourself. You can't patch it yourself or modify it etc.
Is this bad? Realistically there are plenty of situations where people get more benefit out of something running from someone else's server than if they had full freedom and the benefit (burden) of running it on their own server.
Best of both worlds would be having something hosted on someone else's server, yet they allow you to modify the software that is run. This is just plain infeasible and if something like that did exist then I'm sure it would cost way more than normally.
I read it has been available in Europe for a while (the new one) and it gets very good mileage and power for a car in it's class, one of the best. The diesel got 65mpg supposedly and a non-diesel got 45 or something.
So there is no net energy gain or loss once the water is back where it came from... and how do you make energy again? Both processes lose energy because turbines and pumps aren't 100% efficient, and you're not gaining a think anyway so you're losing both ways.
One thing that would work is having a really big tide pool or tidal area and harnessing tidal water when it comes in and goes out.
Ah, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
AC is right, please research the Fiesta. Good car.
Not only did they not have to pay the original 1966 price of $330,000 for the obsolete tape reader, they didn't have to buy it at all!
http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/files/LOVframe162h3.tif
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1321
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya_e.html
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/kaguya/hd.html
A lot are downsampled, but I'm guessing the HD footage is available in some way. I just picked the first couple search results.
I don't know about the tape machine but I read they had to restore one of the only available machines left to working order before beginning at all. Luckily they managed to fix it. I'm guessing you can't just use any read head or machine for any tape.. either that or it does processing that would be expensive and infeasible to recreate in software. I'm sure they would have gone an easier route if there was one. These aren't dumb people. The tape reader didn't cost them $300k (or anything) so there's no point to including that.
As for a lunar rover, lunar orbiting robotic satellites would be a much better way if you want to film the entire surface of the Moon. JAXA's Kaguya is doing that and the Indian Chandraayan I believe too. For example, Mars is bigger than the Moon, but the Mars Rovers haven't seen that much of Mars as an overall percentage.
Also:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=LUNARRO
It will have a high-res camera. I don't see any specs though.
Yeah, man that would just be cool to see it flying around powered! ... since it lands unpowered. "We could use all this liquid hydrogen and oxygen still in our external fuel tank to continue into orbit... BUT we've decided to try flying around, woooo! VAB fly by!