Okay, okay, the alien was ridiculous, the entire film was fraught with physical impossibilities, but as far as the actual "Mission to Mars" part goes, it ain't all that bad of a flick. Anyone who has read The Case for Mars will rapidly recognize the design and purpose of the ERV, the resupply craft, and the landing ship. The film actually protrayed the appearance and use of the vehicles fairly well, and I was admittedly impressed. Just to set the record straight, here's a description of each vehicle -
ERV The Earth Return Vehicle. This ship is sent to Mars ahead of Mars 1 to land on the planet and begin producing consumables and fuel for the return trip. This contains the Oxygen Generator (yes, it's real ; they've done it), some chemical subsystems, and a light craft (roughly half the size of the lander) designed to return the crew to Earth.
Landing Module This is the core of the mission, it carries the astronauts to Mars and serves as their base of operations. Although Zubrin's original plan did no include the artificial gravity deck, it is entirely likely that something akin to this would be placed on the mission.
Resupply Module Honestly, I'm somewhat dumbfounded. My best guess would be that this is the ERV for Mars 2 ; you see, the plan was that their would be a slight overlap of the missions, so that the ERV for Mars 2 would arrive near the end of the mission for Mars 1, so that if Mars 1 encountered trouble (as it did), the ERV could simply land with new supplies.
One more thing : I believe the reviewers confused the two plans under consideration by NASA (Mars Direct and Mars Semi-Direct). When they say that the astronauts leaving Mars at the end of the film will have no water of food, they are assuming that the vessel they inhabit is the MAV (Mars Ascent Verhicle), when it is in fact (as indicated in the film) the ERV. In Zubrin's original plan, the astronauts would go directly from the surface of Mars to Earth aboard the ERV, which is what occurs at the end of the film. The ERV contains sufficient supplies to sustain the astronauts during their voyage. As mentioned above, what the reviewers refer to is the MAV. After NASA reviewed Zubrin's plan, they recommended that a second craft (the ERV, or, in the movie, the resupply module) be placed into orbit around Mars, and that the MAV be used only to lift the astronauts into orbit, where they could dock with the ERV and return to Earth. The filmmakers obviously opted for the more Zubrin-centric approach, thus ensuring the survival of the departing crew members.
Linux was written for higher-end power uses for whom the compromise of usability vs. power was a wise decision. Although it is arcane, difficult, and has a very steep learning curve, it offers tremendous stability, power, and versatility. In short - Linux was not designed as a consumer platform. It was designed for people, like us, who need that extra bit of power and are willing to sacrafice ease of use. Linux is an excellent workstation operating system, but it pales into comparison to consumer systems such as
MacOS
BeOS ( I know, I know, embedded systems. It's still a good consumer OS. )
Do we really want to sacrafice the power of UNIX on the altar of widespread acceptance? I know I don't. Linux stripped of its UNIX history is worthless, Linux is UNIX. That's like saying an eagle that can't fly is the same as a tiger. The eagle was built as an aerial predator, cutting its wings off doesn't allow it to survive as a gound predator. Linux is the ideal platform for me, Mac is the ideal platform for my grandmother. Let's just quit trying to homogenize the OS market : no matter how many X modules you write, one size doesn't fit all when it comes to operating systems.
I have always had faith in Apple, as far as software development goes. MacOS is a clean, effecient piece of work, with a strong (and much-needed) emphasis on usability and stability. MacOSX expands on this by providing the functionality of the NeXT GUI platform. Apple and MacOS are rapidly evolving into the future of consumer personal computing, however, they have been hindered by uncooperative and unproductive business partnerships in hardware. This is a much better model for them : stick to the software. Altough they have had some glorious success in the consumer hardware arena, I would definetely recommend their new strategy ; they will be no longer tied to hardware companies for their production needs. Another interesting thing that this may signify is a shift to the embedded systems market, something Apple has previously stayed of, aside from the Newton, which was really about a decade ahead of its time. If they are capable of carrying over the easy of use and functionality that popularized MacOS in the 80s into the embedded consumer market, they stand a fair chance at positioning Darwin/MacOS as the preeminent consumer OS of the next decade.
I think all of you who are dis-advocated the effect of OOP on the perfermance of an OS are being very one-dimensional. Sure, it all ends up as machine code one way or another, the difference is in the human factor, the pyschological element of programming. Programming is, after all, just a metaphor for computer functionality. The GNU website says it best...
it's built to survive Unlike other popular kernel software, the Hurd has an object-oriented structure that allows it to evolve without compromising its design. This structure will help the Hurd undergo major redesign and modifications without having to be entirely rewritten.
In the initial version the methodology doesn't matter much, but as the OS matures, methodology beings to play a larger role. It's a lot easier to revise an OOP system, maintaining elegance and performance, than it is to revise a conventional structued program. Remember, the article says "better in the long run", which it is. In programming, you must always remember the human element, some might say it's the most important of all.
Re:But Waterworld actually made money
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Economic studies show that every dollar put into space exploration returns at least seven to the private sector in new technologies and industries, so commercial science should have an strong interest in a mission to Mars. In short, NASA, when funded well, is the best investment around, far better than any movie, or any other commerical venture.
Re:First we need a good launcher...
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
We already have a good launcher, it's called the Ares, the design was proposed in Robert Zubrin's The Case For Mars (a great book on Martian colonization, if you have the time). This craft could easily be constructed from off-the-shelf STS equipment, and considering NASA's plan to phase out the shuttle in favor of the X-33 VentureStar sometime around 2010, the current orbiter hardware could be integrated into this project, creating a completely feasible launcher at minimal cost. As far as SSTOs go, the VentureStar will be able to do this, and prelimenary tests are already underway. This really doesn't have much of a bearing on the Mars mission, however, as it makes much more sense simply to launch seperate but independent modules to Mars individually (a la Mars Direct) and produce the return fuel once there. Zubrin really has refined this idea into something feasible, certainly within the next ten years, if not now.
If Crusoe really is what everyone is billing it as , a XISC-architecture (eXtended Instruction Set Code) chip, then should be expected to have serious ramifications in the embedded systems market. If this thing could hardware emulate a JavaChip, an Itanium, or, for that matter, a G4, then chip design has pretty much been standardized, in that there is a single standard capable of replicating all others.
Okay, here's how it is : There are two pronunciations (according to Linus), one in English and one in Swedish. The English one, used by most, is Lie-Nuchs. The Swedish, and, many argue, purer one, is Lih-Nuchs. Some may argue that although it is best if one pronounces it in his native tongue, I believe that we owe it to Linus to pronounce it the way he and his people do : Lih-Nuchs.
People are hailing this ruling as a revolution, as the great changing of the operating system guard, whereas, in my opinion it is simply the natural progression of the industry. Until a few years ago computing was a highly specialized industry, and putting out an OS was a guinely and justifiably difficult undertaking, and, it so happens, a company called Microsoft was the only one with the expertise and the corporate werewithall to generate a mainstream consumer OS.
But that was a few years ago, and the times they are a-changin'. Now that computers are taught in school from an eary age, any individual, any small business that is intelligent and motivated enough can produce their own operating system, and the market is becoming a capitalistic one, finally. BeOS, Linux, even Solaris are all examples of the industrial leap from a specialized industry to a democratic, capitalist market. The judge's ruling didn't put any nails in the coffin of the software giant, it simply justified something which the industry has known all along - someday, there will be honest competition.
The DVD encryption crap is simply yet another example of the Cathedral / Bazaar scenario which continues to manifest itself throughout the industry. The fact of the matter is that while majot corporation stuggle to keep up with the open-source community currently, this is not the way the industry was, say, five years ago. A form of economic or societal Darwinism has emerged in the computing industry, by which major corporations and the coding public work at furious rates just to stay even with each other. The DVD crack is one of the more and more common cases where the Linux community has outstretched "Big Business".
Slashdot Mirror
- ERV The Earth Return Vehicle. This ship is sent to Mars ahead of Mars 1 to land on the planet and begin producing consumables and fuel for the return trip. This contains the Oxygen Generator (yes, it's real ; they've done it), some chemical subsystems, and a light craft (roughly half the size of the lander) designed to return the crew to Earth.
- Landing Module This is the core of the mission, it carries the astronauts to Mars and serves as their base of operations. Although Zubrin's original plan did no include the artificial gravity deck, it is entirely likely that something akin to this would be placed on the mission.
- Resupply Module Honestly, I'm somewhat dumbfounded. My best guess would be that this is the ERV for Mars 2 ; you see, the plan was that their would be a slight overlap of the missions, so that the ERV for Mars 2 would arrive near the end of the mission for Mars 1, so that if Mars 1 encountered trouble (as it did), the ERV could simply land with new supplies.
One more thing : I believe the reviewers confused the two plans under consideration by NASA (Mars Direct and Mars Semi-Direct). When they say that the astronauts leaving Mars at the end of the film will have no water of food, they are assuming that the vessel they inhabit is the MAV (Mars Ascent Verhicle), when it is in fact (as indicated in the film) the ERV. In Zubrin's original plan, the astronauts would go directly from the surface of Mars to Earth aboard the ERV, which is what occurs at the end of the film. The ERV contains sufficient supplies to sustain the astronauts during their voyage. As mentioned above, what the reviewers refer to is the MAV. After NASA reviewed Zubrin's plan, they recommended that a second craft (the ERV, or, in the movie, the resupply module) be placed into orbit around Mars, and that the MAV be used only to lift the astronauts into orbit, where they could dock with the ERV and return to Earth. The filmmakers obviously opted for the more Zubrin-centric approach, thus ensuring the survival of the departing crew members.- MacOS
- BeOS ( I know, I know, embedded systems. It's still a good consumer OS. )
Do we really want to sacrafice the power of UNIX on the altar of widespread acceptance? I know I don't. Linux stripped of its UNIX history is worthless, Linux is UNIX. That's like saying an eagle that can't fly is the same as a tiger. The eagle was built as an aerial predator, cutting its wings off doesn't allow it to survive as a gound predator. Linux is the ideal platform for me, Mac is the ideal platform for my grandmother. Let's just quit trying to homogenize the OS market : no matter how many X modules you write, one size doesn't fit all when it comes to operating systems.I have always had faith in Apple, as far as software development goes. MacOS is a clean, effecient piece of work, with a strong (and much-needed) emphasis on usability and stability. MacOSX expands on this by providing the functionality of the NeXT GUI platform. Apple and MacOS are rapidly evolving into the future of consumer personal computing, however, they have been hindered by uncooperative and unproductive business partnerships in hardware. This is a much better model for them : stick to the software. Altough they have had some glorious success in the consumer hardware arena, I would definetely recommend their new strategy ; they will be no longer tied to hardware companies for their production needs. Another interesting thing that this may signify is a shift to the embedded systems market, something Apple has previously stayed of, aside from the Newton, which was really about a decade ahead of its time. If they are capable of carrying over the easy of use and functionality that popularized MacOS in the 80s into the embedded consumer market, they stand a fair chance at positioning Darwin/MacOS as the preeminent consumer OS of the next decade.
I think all of you who are dis-advocated the effect of OOP on the perfermance of an OS are being very one-dimensional. Sure, it all ends up as machine code one way or another, the difference is in the human factor, the pyschological element of programming. Programming is, after all, just a metaphor for computer functionality. The GNU website says it best...
it's built to survive Unlike other popular kernel software, the Hurd has an object-oriented structure that allows it to evolve without compromising its design. This structure will help the Hurd undergo major redesign and modifications without having to be entirely rewritten.
In the initial version the methodology doesn't matter much, but as the OS matures, methodology beings to play a larger role. It's a lot easier to revise an OOP system, maintaining elegance and performance, than it is to revise a conventional structued program. Remember, the article says "better in the long run", which it is. In programming, you must always remember the human element, some might say it's the most important of all.
Economic studies show that every dollar put into space exploration returns at least seven to the private sector in new technologies and industries, so commercial science should have an strong interest in a mission to Mars. In short, NASA, when funded well, is the best investment around, far better than any movie, or any other commerical venture.
We already have a good launcher, it's called the Ares, the design was proposed in Robert Zubrin's The Case For Mars (a great book on Martian colonization, if you have the time). This craft could easily be constructed from off-the-shelf STS equipment, and considering NASA's plan to phase out the shuttle in favor of the X-33 VentureStar sometime around 2010, the current orbiter hardware could be integrated into this project, creating a completely feasible launcher at minimal cost. As far as SSTOs go, the VentureStar will be able to do this, and prelimenary tests are already underway. This really doesn't have much of a bearing on the Mars mission, however, as it makes much more sense simply to launch seperate but independent modules to Mars individually (a la Mars Direct) and produce the return fuel once there. Zubrin really has refined this idea into something feasible, certainly within the next ten years, if not now.
If Crusoe really is what everyone is billing it as , a XISC-architecture (eXtended Instruction Set Code) chip, then should be expected to have serious ramifications in the embedded systems market. If this thing could hardware emulate a JavaChip, an Itanium, or, for that matter, a G4, then chip design has pretty much been standardized, in that there is a single standard capable of replicating all others.
Okay, here's how it is : There are two pronunciations (according to Linus), one in English and one in Swedish. The English one, used by most, is Lie-Nuchs. The Swedish, and, many argue, purer one, is Lih-Nuchs. Some may argue that although it is best if one pronounces it in his native tongue, I believe that we owe it to Linus to pronounce it the way he and his people do : Lih-Nuchs.
People are hailing this ruling as a revolution, as the great changing of the operating system guard, whereas, in my opinion it is simply the natural progression of the industry. Until a few years ago computing was a highly specialized industry, and putting out an OS was a guinely and justifiably difficult undertaking, and, it so happens, a company called Microsoft was the only one with the expertise and the corporate werewithall to generate a mainstream consumer OS.
But that was a few years ago, and the times they are a-changin'. Now that computers are taught in school from an eary age, any individual, any small business that is intelligent and motivated enough can produce their own operating system, and the market is becoming a capitalistic one, finally. BeOS, Linux, even Solaris are all examples of the industrial leap from a specialized industry to a democratic, capitalist market. The judge's ruling didn't put any nails in the coffin of the software giant, it simply justified something which the industry has known all along - someday, there will be honest competition.
Cheers to a new era.
The DVD encryption crap is simply yet another example of the Cathedral / Bazaar scenario which continues to manifest itself throughout the industry. The fact of the matter is that while majot corporation stuggle to keep up with the open-source community currently, this is not the way the industry was, say, five years ago. A form of economic or societal Darwinism has emerged in the computing industry, by which major corporations and the coding public work at furious rates just to stay even with each other. The DVD crack is one of the more and more common cases where the Linux community has outstretched "Big Business".
This is something of an analogy to the M$ trial. Big business is relatively invulnerable to litigation. Someone needs to step in and fix this.