Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 303

Delta-V costs are not the only criteria.

The number one limiting factor of any space vehicle is cost per kg at launch. NASA could build a Mars vehicle any size they wanted except they have to figure a way to get it in orbit without spending the entire budget to launch it.

Irrelevant when the number one defining factor of STS is how much pork can be siphoned off to spend into each supporting senator's district and not whether or not it helps the an extremely improbable Mars mission or even just the improbable "planned" moon flyby.

You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base

I am not proposing. I am relaying what has been proposed.

We're not in junior high here, you can stop trying to play semantic games. You bring the subject to the conversation, you defend it. Knowing that there is hydrogen on the Moon does not mean that it is under the form of water ices nor how accessible it is nor how difficult and expensive harvesting it may be.

sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth.

No oxidizer is required for electrolysis.

You cannot know that lunar hydrogen is in the form of water ice, have not proven it's accessibility, have not proven that you have worked out the process to develop it as a usable ressource nor proven that you can do so for less than it will cost at that point in time to deliver from earth. Pray do so now.

Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...

1) I didn't say it would be easy. I said it would be "easier".

Proof? Nah you don't have proof (indeed you _cannot_ at present) and if this post is any indication you'll try playing semantic games again to attempt to avoid answering.

2) How much fuel is left in a space vehicle after Earth orbit is reached? Very little. There's a reason most space probes use gravity assists to speed them towards their destination. And being unmanned they don't have constraints on time and resources that manned missions will have.

Oooh, ooh I know this one! it's because Nasa, being hobbled by the U.S legislature never invested significantly in lowering the cost of launching mass to orbit, preferring to spend the money on futile studies as the only meaningful yardstick became $$$/district.

3) NASA has been directed to do something; you may not like what they propose but that doesn't mean they can refuse to do it. Get to Mars is directive. For NASA that means getting to the Moon again.

You seem to have been living in a cave with no contact with the exterior for the last few months. Allow me to enlighten you: Nasa's congressional masters and the president have changed. No-one knows exactly what the implications are yet but Trump's declarations that cost cutting is more important than rockets to nowhere means that the directives are to change soon and Mars is not likely to be a directive for much longer.

"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.

Engineering and numbers don't change with administrators. Math is math. What is the cost of launching directly from Earth vs launching from the moon.

Spoken like someone who lives off of studies that will never come to fruition.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 303

I think you're confusing "a moon base" with "a full industrial infrastructure capable of producing complex objects". Even the concept that it would be cheaper to launch unrefined raw regolith from the moon cheaper than we can launch equivalent mass payloads from Earth anytime even remotely soon is absurd.

Nowhere did I say that NASA needs to rebuild and entire installation; however, in terms of fuel cost it is much easier to launch from the Earth to the moon then refuel at the moon to launch at Mars than to launch from Earth directly to Mars. Do the math.

Delta-V costs are not the only criteria. You're the one proposing that it is "easier [to] refuel at the moon" [sic] so the onus is on you to detail how much developing a moon base sufficient to perform extraction of fuel/oxidizer and the means to transfer them to earth launched vehicles are versus doing so from earth. Don't forget that spending billions to develop a rarely used infrastructure is precisely the point that most critics of NASA have at present...

Earth is where industry is. The fact that we're a deep gravity well increases costs, but that difference is nothing compared to the difference in industrial capacities on and off Earth. Every production process has feedstock and consumables dependency chains. Those have dependency chains, and those have further chains, to a massive network of ever-increasing complexity. One of the worst dependencies is humans, which in turn spawn massive dependency chains.

Current NASA plans have the moon as a refueling point. That requires a moon base.

"Current" NASA plans have a tendency to change with administrations.

Comment Re:This won't be popular... (Score 1) 510

Really? Most americans voted for fascism?

Shall we count the ways you were wrong in a one line post?
1. Trump isn't a fascist. He's a rightist populist with _major_ issues but just because some people use the wrong definitions to label something/one doesn't make their use correct.
2. A majority of Americans happily voted for trump. He lost the popular vote.
3. Not everyone voted so that makes even fewer who voted for him.
4. An analysis printed shortly after the election in the NYT showed that while those who said that they knew who they were going to vote for 90 days before the election did indeed vote for that candidate (following party lines), that the election was decided by a third of the electorate who disliked both candidates and who ended up voting 75/25% Trump/Clinton. So even those who voted for him weren't voting "for fascism".
5. The dislike/hate of Clinton by even many Democrats and the desire for a break with 8 years of an Obama presidency do not equate with a love of fascism.

Get over your sour grapes, the way to fight Trump is not with slander, lying about him just feeds into his line that "the popular media cannot be trusted". It's not like the truth isn't enough - Use the Truth Luke...

Comment Re: Idiot (Score 1) 641

That I and others do not agree with "Oooh he's grieving we need to allow him to grieve by blaming innocents" != missing the intended point.

Should a grieving father be able to blame an innocent man? Go back 70 years... When a posse of like minded men hunt down and hang that innocent black man, the father's blind lashing out shares in the responsibility of that abomination.

Grief is no different than Hate, Fear, Love or any other emotion in that it does not justify blaming innocents.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 641

No argument that /. has lost much over the years but painting everyone here as heartless dicks is hyperbole and speaks more to a depression you seem to be undergoing than to the supposed lack of empathy we (those /.ers that aren't you) have.

We have moved beyond declaring vendettas, feuds and vigilantes for the loss of loved ones (letting the justice system assume the burden). Why should we continue to humour someone when they lash out and shirk the blame onto innocents? One can grieve without lashing out & the father should have done so.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 2, Insightful) 641

No. A "grieving father" doesn't get a free pass to blame others for his daughter's (and his own) responsibilities in the accident.
- Drinking 3 times over the limit and then _driving_.
- Purchasing a vehicle that is beyond your capacity to handle (at least while drunk).

Who exactly was it that _didn't_ sufficiently ingrain into his daughter that drinking and driving is lethal?

Comment Re:Block or outage (Score 1) 186

It's a route blackhole that blocks 104.31.18.30 and 104.31.19.30 entering cogent:
$:~ phayes$ traceroute 104.31.18.30
traceroute to 104.31.18.30 (104.31.18.30), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
  1 * 172.20.10.1 (172.20.10.1) 1.097 ms 0.549 ms
  2 172.31.255.250 (172.31.255.250) 38.182 ms 42.392 ms 32.059 ms
  3 172.31.255.10 (172.31.255.10) 40.190 ms 39.136 ms 47.807 ms
  4 * p11-9k-1-be1024.intf.routers.proxad.net (194.149.162.5) 778.023 ms 718.829 ms
  5 p11-9k-1-be2100.intf.routers.proxad.net (194.149.162.29) 47.728 ms 38.658 ms 39.877 ms
  6 p11-crs16-1-be1004.intf.routers.proxad.net (78.254.249.129) 44.077 ms 35.318 ms 51.958 ms
  7 th2-9k-3-be1001.intf.routers.proxad.net (194.149.162.86) 35.975 ms 34.663 ms 39.780 ms
  8 * * *
  9 * * *
10 * * * ...

$:~ phayes$ traceroute 104.31.18.3
traceroute to 104.31.18.3 (104.31.18.3), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
  1 172.20.10.1 (172.20.10.1) 0.760 ms 0.534 ms 0.511 ms
  2 172.31.255.250 (172.31.255.250) 43.636 ms 39.232 ms 40.144 ms
  3 172.31.255.10 (172.31.255.10) 40.141 ms 38.507 ms 40.081 ms
  4 p11-9k-1-be1024.intf.routers.proxad.net (194.149.162.5) 715.054 ms 891.669 ms *
  5 p11-9k-1-be2100.intf.routers.proxad.net (194.149.162.29) 48.022 ms 42.905 ms 39.738 ms
  6 p11-crs16-1-be1004.intf.routers.proxad.net (78.254.249.129) 52.004 ms 31.451 ms 40.011 ms
  7 th2-9k-3-be1001.intf.routers.proxad.net (194.149.162.86) 36.100 ms 39.139 ms 40.123 ms
  8 be4204.ccr31.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (149.11.115.13) 39.932 ms 42.901 ms 31.747 ms
  9 be3184.ccr42.par01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.38.157) 39.915 ms
        be3183.ccr41.par01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.38.65) 34.140 ms
        be3184.ccr42.par01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.38.157) 39.195 ms
10 be2424.rcr21.par05.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.2.238) 43.208 ms
        be2425.rcr21.par05.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.3.206) 35.184 ms
        be2424.rcr21.par05.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.2.238) 31.005 ms
11 gttnet.par05.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.15.106) 39.691 ms 30.545 ms 39.862 ms
12 xe-8-2-0.cr0-par9.ip4.gtt.net (141.136.109.65) 40.385 ms 30.774 ms
        xe-7-0-1.cr0-par9.ip4.gtt.net (89.149.185.118) 39.956 ms
13 ip4.gtt.net (46.33.81.218) 29.080 ms 31.297 ms 43.968 ms
14 104.31.18.3 (104.31.18.3) 39.838 ms 34.716 ms 43.958 ms

Comment Re:One standard to rule them all (Score 1) 153

So you think that Blackberry, Samsung & HTC have all been using out of spec connectors? Sorry, blaming poor implementation of connectors isn't the problem. The problem is that the Micro-USB specification itself is weak and doesn't meet the promises the USB forum promised it had. We clearly don't have as much professional experience with Apple products and thus with lightning than with Micro-USB but lightning doesn't suffer from the weak center post is reversible so no putting it in the "wrong" way and uses a connector where the contacts are flush with the connector, making it materially less subject to weakening connector contact pressure over time.

Where it not for the Apple copyright & entrenched NIH syndrome a Lightning style connector would have been a far better choice than the much improved USB-C connector because it still retains that fragile connecter laden/weakened center post.

Slashdot Top Deals

Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.

Working...