A powered exo-sketeton? It must use negative feedback loops to sense the operators movements, and then amplify them. This was described in Robert A. Heinlien's "Starship Troopers" back in the 1950's. A powered exo-skeleton was mentioned in Arthur C. Clake's "Hammer Of God" in the 1990's, the unit being an experimental design to allow natives of low gravity worlds to visit Earth. This has been science fiction until now, and there is incredble promise in this techmology. However, it must not be confused with control by nueral induction, as described in Martin Caiden's "Cyborg". That would be the only way that a paralyzed person could control an exo-skeleton, as they are not able to move their limbs.
This technology also impacts telepresence, in that an operator wearing a exo-skeleton could perform physical labor at a remote sight, such as from a base on the Moon to a site in vacum. This would avoid the dangers of working in a spacesuit when suit integrity could be easily lost, as well as allowing the worker greater comfort than would be found in wearing a space suit for hours on end.
Except for online gamers and video producers, is there a big market for even faster processors? Apart from boot-up time, most users don't see a big difference after upgrading from.5 gHz processors to 2.5 gHz processors. It doesn't make the internet go faster, movies play in shorter times, or solitaire any easier to win. Without a market, why spend millions to develop a new product?
I have come to believe that 'high finance' means that everyone in the boardroom is on drugs. Some of these zech-u-tives are only interested in getting a bigger corporation to buy out the operation, so that the stockholders will get some cash for the stock they held. To make the company more desireable to a specific suitor, the board will spin off divisions that don't fit into the suitor's portfolio. Too bad that some suitors get cold feet, and back away from the deal, or suddenly can only come up with part of the capital that they promised. A lot of these boardroom types could care less if the company has anything worthwhile to sell, as long as they can keep the stock price up. So, instead of investing in new plant and equipment, or giving the workers a raise, they pay all the stock holders a dividend! GM lost over 8 billion dollars last year, but they are still going to pay a dividend! In cash, no less, not a stock split, or some other accounting method of giving something of value to the stockholders. Heck, no, they are going to pay out millions of dollars in liquid assets. American corporate management is becoming prone to complacency, believing that they are invincible. Part of the reason is that bankruptcy hardley affects the board members at all, most of the time.
"There is no dark side of the Moon. As a matter of fact, it's all dark." How true that is! You are refering to the 'far side' of the Moon, the part that never sees Earth. However, the Moon rotates on its axis, once every 28 days. So Farside gets two weeks of day and two weeks of night, just like Earthside. However, night on Earthside will be very different than night on Farside, for the Earth will be a large, bright object in the sky at times. But your idea about an observatory on Farside is superb, because the Moon would be an excellent shield for the electromagnetic racket that is created on Earth. Also, an optical observatory would not have a big hole in the sky where Earth is. One that you cannot look through.
Landing at either pole of the Moon means giving up landing on relatively flat surfaces that have been well mapped from Earth, ignoring the fascinating geology of the lunar seas, and all in the hopes that there might be large amounts of water ice hidden away up there. Irregardless of whether or not that there is water ice on the Moon, we are going to go there, and stay. The Moon is our bridgehead in space, our toe-hold in an unfamiliar environment.
Mars is not going to go anywhere, and we have lots to learn before we are ready to tackle a planet as tricky as Mars. So far, the United States has shown no long-term commitment in its space programs. They have all been short term, immediate-goal oriented. We have thrown a lot of money away building hardware that didn't get used properly, the space shuttle, which should have been put to work immediately building a space station and launching parts for Lunar shuttles.
Now that our space trucks have been rendered useless by poor management, we are going to have to start all over again. We should keep thigs simple until we have a better idea of what we are doing. We know enough about the near side of the Moon to know where a good initial survey base site would be, one that can be used to support expeditions all over the Moon. We probably will pick a different place in the long run for a permanent base, so it is not critical to find the ideal location.
Slashdot Mirror
A powered exo-sketeton? It must use negative feedback loops to sense the operators movements, and then amplify them. This was described in Robert A. Heinlien's "Starship Troopers" back in the 1950's. A powered exo-skeleton was mentioned in Arthur C. Clake's "Hammer Of God" in the 1990's, the unit being an experimental design to allow natives of low gravity worlds to visit Earth. This has been science fiction until now, and there is incredble promise in this techmology. However, it must not be confused with control by nueral induction, as described in Martin Caiden's "Cyborg". That would be the only way that a paralyzed person could control an exo-skeleton, as they are not able to move their limbs. This technology also impacts telepresence, in that an operator wearing a exo-skeleton could perform physical labor at a remote sight, such as from a base on the Moon to a site in vacum. This would avoid the dangers of working in a spacesuit when suit integrity could be easily lost, as well as allowing the worker greater comfort than would be found in wearing a space suit for hours on end.
Except for online gamers and video producers, is there a big market for even faster processors? Apart from boot-up time, most users don't see a big difference after upgrading from .5 gHz processors to 2.5 gHz processors. It doesn't make the internet go faster, movies play in shorter times, or solitaire any easier to win. Without a market, why spend millions to develop a new product?
I have come to believe that 'high finance' means that everyone in the boardroom is on drugs. Some of these zech-u-tives are only interested in getting a bigger corporation to buy out the operation, so that the stockholders will get some cash for the stock they held. To make the company more desireable to a specific suitor, the board will spin off divisions that don't fit into the suitor's portfolio. Too bad that some suitors get cold feet, and back away from the deal, or suddenly can only come up with part of the capital that they promised. A lot of these boardroom types could care less if the company has anything worthwhile to sell, as long as they can keep the stock price up. So, instead of investing in new plant and equipment, or giving the workers a raise, they pay all the stock holders a dividend! GM lost over 8 billion dollars last year, but they are still going to pay a dividend! In cash, no less, not a stock split, or some other accounting method of giving something of value to the stockholders. Heck, no, they are going to pay out millions of dollars in liquid assets. American corporate management is becoming prone to complacency, believing that they are invincible. Part of the reason is that bankruptcy hardley affects the board members at all, most of the time.
"There is no dark side of the Moon. As a matter of fact, it's all dark." How true that is! You are refering to the 'far side' of the Moon, the part that never sees Earth. However, the Moon rotates on its axis, once every 28 days. So Farside gets two weeks of day and two weeks of night, just like Earthside. However, night on Earthside will be very different than night on Farside, for the Earth will be a large, bright object in the sky at times. But your idea about an observatory on Farside is superb, because the Moon would be an excellent shield for the electromagnetic racket that is created on Earth. Also, an optical observatory would not have a big hole in the sky where Earth is. One that you cannot look through. Landing at either pole of the Moon means giving up landing on relatively flat surfaces that have been well mapped from Earth, ignoring the fascinating geology of the lunar seas, and all in the hopes that there might be large amounts of water ice hidden away up there. Irregardless of whether or not that there is water ice on the Moon, we are going to go there, and stay. The Moon is our bridgehead in space, our toe-hold in an unfamiliar environment. Mars is not going to go anywhere, and we have lots to learn before we are ready to tackle a planet as tricky as Mars. So far, the United States has shown no long-term commitment in its space programs. They have all been short term, immediate-goal oriented. We have thrown a lot of money away building hardware that didn't get used properly, the space shuttle, which should have been put to work immediately building a space station and launching parts for Lunar shuttles. Now that our space trucks have been rendered useless by poor management, we are going to have to start all over again. We should keep thigs simple until we have a better idea of what we are doing. We know enough about the near side of the Moon to know where a good initial survey base site would be, one that can be used to support expeditions all over the Moon. We probably will pick a different place in the long run for a permanent base, so it is not critical to find the ideal location.