I don't think "full auto" is required. This is more like Tesla's "autopilot" concept than Google's "driverless" car. This would get used most often on the interstate, not so much in cities, and it's a pretty good fit for that application. I can do some work (or take a nap) between cities and take the wheel a few minutes before the exit ramp. (Or I could program certain conditions such as weather or traffic to trigger an alarm.) But even this level of automation would dramatically reduce highway casualties.

What I'm curious about is how they sense certain road conditions, such as "black ice" that can fool even the most experienced human driver. OTOH, with a broad range of sensing like RADAR and echolocation, you could plow through pea-soup fog without much worry.

I'm lucky to live in a place (Taipei) where public transportation is cheap and ubiquitous. Even taxis are plentiful and cheap here. I don't even own a single motorized vehicle. Why bother, when I can get to anyplace I want with less than 20min walking and $2 in fees, and I can get home from anywhere in the city for less than $10, anytime, day or night?

This is where "full auto" is required: bringing this kind of convenience to the broad, "midwestern" spaces of America. When you can make the round-trip to/from your local watering hole for less than 15 bucks, why would anyone take the risk of driving drunk?

I think Google is smart to be investing so heavily in this tech, because once we pass that tipping point, this is going to be the biggest "killer app" of all time. And in the meantime, Tesla is also smart to be pursuing their autopilot tech, because it will be a huge selling point.

I read somewhere, years ago, that Shulgin had an "informal understanding" with the authorities: he would keep his "recipes" obscure enough to prevent casual duplication by anyone without a PhD in organic chemistry, and in return "they" would leave him alone to do his work -- and they would also reap the benefits of his research via his copious and detailed lab notes and trip reports.

I have no idea if this is true, but it sounds nice.

In any case, well played, Sasha... RIP.

Based on recent developments, costs could plummet. IMHO, the only reason Google is even talking about this now is because SpaceX recently flew a (theoretically) reusable first stage. Of course, "practical" reusability is still in the works, but Musk is tight with the gurus of Google, and it doesn't cost them much in the short run to flog their "visionary" quest to bring broadband to the masses. And if Musk succeeds with reusability (which seems likely) they'll be able to deploy this constellation at a fraction of the currently advertised cost.

Sounds like a win-win for all concerned...

> SpaceX want to remove the parachutes, too?

No, they are not removing the parachutes, they'll be kept as a backup system in case the landing thrusters fail.

It'll be a while before we start towing asteroids into Earth orbit. Earth-Moon Lagrange points will be the first destinations, then after we get good at that we'll gradually allow more and bigger rocks closer to Earth.

As for kinetic bombardment from orbit, the energy budget is not promising for this scenario. The amount of reaction mass needed to de-orbit a large boulder is "non trivial" to say the least. I suppose you could build a rail-gun and shoot a small mass at high velocity in order nudge a bigger rock into decay, but unless you've got a really huge capacitor, you'll have a tough time "dropping" a rock from orbit that would do much more damage than a standard cruise missile.

It's trivial to track such changes in velocity. So if you can't "drop" your boulder directly on target without taking a couple of orbits to decay, then the weapon loses it's surprise/initiative. The target could simply nuke it in space before it has a chance to de-orbit.

Then you've got the problem of cross-range deflection. Unless you don't mind waiting a few hours (or days, or weeks) until your rock's orbit takes it right over your target, you're going to need some way to widen your zone. The rail-gun can do some of this work, but you're going to need an "aerodynamic" rock in order to hit a precision target.

I'm not saying this is impossible, I just don't think it's very likely, given how many other (much easier) ways we already have to do the same job.

If you're not familiar with potholer54 you should check out his videos on climate change. He cuts through the BS/hype on both sides of the issue, and is reasonably amusing too. Very worth the time.

Mod points can't be changed, only deleted. Could be somebody accidentally down-modded somewhere else in this discussion, and posted with their real uid to undo the mistake. If they had previously up-modded the parent, that mod point would be gone now too.

Thanks again for "translating" the argument into language I can make sense of. IIRC, Lerner does acknowledge the engineering challenges in the "PCST" (nice acronym, btw). But if he can demonstrate the p-B reaction with his method (especially if he can do so for $200k), that could open a floodgate of interest and investment.

Doing that reliably on an over-unity energy budget would be a "BFD" (in the words of VP Biden), and it could dramatically alter the course of R&D. I'm just "spit-balling" here as a non-expert, but the PCST sounds a lot less challenging than the Tokamak.

That is interesting. Thanks for the link. I wish I had the expertise to follow the argument in detail, but I'll just have to take "their" word for it (on both sides) and wait and see how it all turns out.

That said, I confess that I hope Lerner can make his method work. From an engineering POV, it's an elegant solution to the problem of plasma instability... don't fight it, use it to your advantage. The history of science may be littered with "elegant" ideas that didn't pan out, but there are also quite a few examples of ideas that were initially scoffed at by the mainstream, and nowadays are mainstream.

If that is the case, then why haven't they done a single experiment in centrifugal "artificial gravity" yet? Heck, they wouldn't even need ISS for that. The idea has been around since the 60s (at least), but it's never even been tried by anyone that I know of.

Part of the problem is that Mr. Lerner also favors a steady-state model over the Big Bang theory, so he is not taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community. OTOH, he does appear to know a lot about plasma behavior, and has gotten some interesting results with the small-scale "garage" experiments he's done thus far. If $200k is enough to get his work to the next level where he can show some more compelling evidence, maybe that will be enough to get some VC guy like Khosla to give him a few million more.

In any case, he seems harmless enough. And he doesn't appear to be blatantly trying to rip people off, like so many of these "free energy" gurus... I say let him proceed, and see what he can come up with.

If you're curious about the approach, watch his Google Tech-Talk for the details. It's one of the more novel methods I've seen.

If the price to "unlock" the demos is cheap, they might have a winner, but then why would their current customers continue to pay those hefty per-seat fees? OTOH, if they're going for a mass-market shift toward cheap, ubiquitous 3D printing, that would make sense. I just don't see how a big corporation would make a move like that on such a short time scale. Methinks this is more marketing hype than a real strategic shift.

I was thinking the same thing. And this breaks down their analogy to the Google Nexus, since Android was released as "free" and (reasonably) "open" software. OTOH, if you can afford a $5k printer, you can probably afford a "seat" license for AutoCAD too. Seems to me the maker-bot crowd have already sparked the fire, so I'm not sure how this new offering is going to speed up the revolution. I don't see anything wrong with what they're doing either... just have to wait and see what comes of it.

Lady Marmalade

Hey Sister, Go Sister, Sol Sister, Go Sister
Hey Sister, Go Sister, Sol Sister, Go Sister

Today's /. fortune is particularly appropriate: "There has been a little distress selling on the stock exchange. -- Thomas W. Lamont, October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday)"