Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Great--humans getting back into space (i know I (Score 1) 54

In real life, what's going to happen is the Chinese will be the only ones strong in space exploration

Given the glacial pace and lack of ambition the Chinese have displayed so far... whatever you're smoking in order to believe this has to be illegal.

Comment Re:science fiction (Score 1) 36

To Dani's comment, I'll just add that, the day that an asteroid assay is done and proves that the thing is actually more than 1% platinum, or any other of the many proposed ways to make space economically interesting proves out, the land rush will be on.

There is no mineral or resource valuable enough that you wouldn't got broke bringing it back to Earth - even if it were stacked in neat little ingots so you wouldn't have to refine it, just open the hatch and shovel it in. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Comment Re:Mirrors (Score 1) 125

And it has to be a front surface mirror lest the substrate or any protective coverings or coatings absorb the laser energy and negate the point of having a mirror in the first place... I.E. the most difficult kind of mirror to keep as clean and flawless as it has to be to provide the desired protection.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 4, Informative) 282

It takes pretty impressive doublethink to suggest that pessimism about a hypothetical nuclear exchange that the government's own strategists were talking about in terms of 'mutually assured destruction' and 'deterrence' is somehow a product of propaganda.

You've got your timeline all screwed up... The papers are dated 1959, when the "official" position was still (more-or-less) that a nuclear exchange with the Soviets was winnable and the effects of Tailgunner Joe's Red Scare still lingered on the political landscape. "Mutual destruction" and "deterrence" wouldn't become the primary US strategy until the Kennedy administration.

Comment Re:Kalmbach (Score 1) 149

Also, check out your local meetups via . Good luck

This - no matter what the hobby, working face to face with others is always useful. Doubly so for a real world hobby where you can go check out their work or bring your stuff to a meet to ask questions.

But the biggest thing in this respect, is to work with your relative.

Comment Re:Some notes (Score 1) 345

* contender against the C-5 Galaxy for a military transport, against which it lost
* developed with money from the military, but nooo, never got subsidies (as is always held against Airbus)

Wrong on both counts. The Boeing aircraft that would have become the C5 was an entirely separate project, and the 747 was entirely an internal (and civilian) project.

* ultimately sank its first customer, Pan Am, as they never really recovered from the costs of introducing that airplane

[[Citation Needed]]

Comment Re:funding the lander. (Score 1) 53

Virtually every other nasa mission has the same budget profile of expecting early failure so not budgeting in the costs of maintaining the mission.

That may have been the case decades ago when you were there, but you haven't been keeping up with the news - fully funded extended missions are now the norm.

But conventional ferric oxide tapes would have melted in the sterilization process, so they took a page from Hitler's scientists who pioneered magnetic recording on magnetic stainless steel tapes.

The use of steel tapes was indeed pioneered in Germany - but in 1924, while Hitler was in prison.

Radiation damage to integrated electronics in satellites was a big problem at the time, and I'm not sure why that's different now, but in any case they decided to use core memory rather than chip memory. (hence the term "core dump" for all you youngsters).

It was a known, and well managed problem, by the time the Viking's were designed.

Only this wasn't your grandmother's knitting style core memory but rather the cores were applied by evaporating the magnetic material onto the wires allowing a tight radiation impervious memory mesh to be synthesized.

That's called plated wire memory, and it was actually very common in aerospace applications.

Comment Re:Summary = Troll (Score 1) 345

Look, I'm an American but the summary is a ludicrous troll.

Hell, the article is a ludicrous troll. The author speaks of "analog gauges", but fails to mention that digital cockpits are standard on new builds (and have been for over a decade) as well as being available for retrofit on older models. He also fails to mention that while it's not the leader, the 747-800 is still selling quite well.

Comment Re:First to achieve soft landing? really? (Score 1) 53

And when you look at List of Solar System probes there is a good deal of red in a whole lotta space probes.

Sure, there's a "whole lotta red" if you just look... and you're the kind who gives out blue ribbons for just trying. In reality, if you actually read rather than just comparing the visual count of flags, a lot of those "red" probes were complete failures.

And that's the story of Soviet era space exploration in a nutshell - they achieved some impressive firsts, but they were also virtually completely unable to follow up on them. Partly because of their technological lag, partly because of budget problems, partly because they kept pushing for missions to fly on certain dates (such as May Day) or before anyone else rather than when the spacecraft was ready.

Comment Re:Not a slew. Not even statistically significant. (Score 1) 186

That is not an example. Do a little research before making such an extravagant claim.

Don't hold me to a standard you refuse to hold yourself to mate.

I'm not aware of a car on the market today that hasn't been recalled for something in the past 2-3 years.

Ah, I see that you're unaware that cars are only a very small part of "industries". Or, you're trying to retroactively limit your former claim of "what industries?" to "what automobiles?". No dice.

The papers described here are not necessarily completely bogus, however the authors gamed the review system to get them in. Whether the science was crap or not is not clear. Cheating the peer review system suggests there is a chance of the paper being fabricated completely but that does not guarantee it.

Nice - you act like all recalls should be held accountable, but hold the papers to an entirely different standard.

Can you say "bias"? I thought you could.

Kindly fuck off.

The moon is a planet just like the Earth, only it is even deader.