Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Load it up with food, water supplies, strap (Score 1) 234

Won't work. The ISS doesn't have enough radiation shielding to allow astronauts to survive for long beyond the Van Allan belts. Also, it would take a VERY long time to go anywhere on the "10 Watts in, 10 micro-Newtons of thrust out" that an EM drive provides. The ISS has about 100 kW of solar power capacity - and if 100% of that went into an array of 10,000 EM drives - you'd get 10 milli-Newtons of thrust out. The ISS has a mass of around 400,000kg and needs about 10m/s of deltaV added to it every couple of months just to stay in orbit.

There is no way for EM drives to do anything of use whatever.

Comment Re:Cheaper than starting over (Score 1) 234

Yeah - but the ISS would end up being about 1% of all of the engineering you describe...and because it doesn't have enough shielding to operate safely beyond the Van Allan belts - and it's solar panels won't deliver enough power out by Mars - you's end up with a TON or rework to do.

The trouble it brings would by far exceed it's worth.

If the ISS is going to be worth anything - it's right in the orbit it's in now. Because it needs to be re-boosted to higher orbits every 3 to 6 months - it's not a free resource.

So unless you find a benefit that it's giving to humanity that exceeds the resupply/boost cost where it is right now - then the only cost-effective thing to do is to crash it into the Pacific ocean.

Comment Re:Explore with it or kill it (Score 1) 234

You're right - but if the US doesn't pass a law to continue to fund it past 2024 - then there is no chance of the other countries providing enough cash to keep it flying. If the USA said "We're going to donate our part to private space agencies (who probably won't want to provide food/water/supplies to YOUR astronauts)"...then what could they do about it?

Comment Re:Explore with it or kill it (Score 3, Interesting) 234

I agree - it's really not doing a whole lot for us.

Ditching it into the pacific would be a bad idea - but donating it to privately owned space businesses like SpaceX and Bigelow who are already working with the ISS would make a lot more sense. Consider the boost to US business if those companies had free access to the ISS!

NASA did their job here - they got private industry interested in that stuff - now they can step back from doing what they already know how to do - and get on with the difficult researchy stuff.

Comment Re:Just needs a little nudge. (Score 1) 234

The trouble is that once you're out of low Earth Orbit, you don't get any of the earth's magnetic field protection from solar radiation. Long term occupancy of a structure outside of that orbit requires decent quantities of shielding - which the ISS doesn't have.

If you think the ISS is costly to maintain now - imagine what it would be if each resupply mission needs a rocket the size of a Saturn V to get food, water and oxygen up to a lunar orbit.

Sure, EVENTUALLY, you can get oxygen and water from the moon - but that won't happen until LONG after 2024.

Sadly - although this seems like a reasonable idea - I think it's a non-starter.

Comment Re:Easy, the programmer of course. (Score 1) 180

It doesn't matter at all. The developer is still responsible and liable for the usage of these unpredictable and unverifiable algorithms in his products. You cannot hide behind the unpredictability of an algorithm if you decided to use it in a critical part of a product that needs predictability to keep someone safe. You decided in first place to play with the life of someone else.

Comment Re:Obvious Answer (Score 1) 180

Exactly. The manufacturer is responsible to use wisely technology into its own products. It is liable for failing to do the right decisions about where, when and how AI should be incorporated into a product and what kind of AI should be embedded into a product. The wide range and diversity in technology, existing and to come, prevent lawmakers to keep legislation current for each technology if they had to do so. The lawmaker is not in the best position to weight the advantages and disadvantages of using AI in a product and hence, cannot be liable for its usage.

Comment Re:The cloud (Score 4, Insightful) 235

Even if I share your comments, the original point about Web Assembly has nothing to do with what the poster complained about. I mean, Web Assembly doesn't introduce that problem, it is already there for decades. So, I welcome Web Assembly for what it is, a mean to increase the performance of applications in the browser. Now, should we or shouldn't we have complex applications in the browser and which ones is another matter.

However, the browser is a convenient way to distribute applications inside an enterprise. In that case, you don't have thousands of unknown parties trying to hack your browser and making it crawling instead of running.

I would probably prefer enterprise applications based on Web Assembly than on Flash or even mostly Javascript.

Slashdot Top Deals

But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei

Working...