Non-IT News Thread
-
@thanksajdotcom said in Non-IT News Thread:
@thanksajdotcom said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/21/part_2_of_elon_musk_master_plan/
This man is legit one of my heroes...
While climate change is legit, carbon dioxide is not, and why the half lie is so believable. We do need some sort of sustainable power capacity, but what we need first is a way to transfer power on a global scale without the unacceptably high losses we have today (~50% loss between the generation plant and a household.) Once we can transfer power between continents, solar suddenly makes sense.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in Non-IT News Thread:
@thanksajdotcom said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/21/part_2_of_elon_musk_master_plan/
This man is legit one of my heroes...
I used to think he was kind of interesting until I found out he micromanages his employees and he's a general lunatic who ignores physics in favour of "disrupting" things. If they don't get over this single stage rocket nonsense they'll never go anywhere except low Earth orbit.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
If they don't get over this single stage rocket nonsense they'll never go anywhere except low Earth orbit.
The Falcon Heavy is slated for launch later this year or early next I believe.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@thanksajdotcom said in Non-IT News Thread:
This man is legit one of my heroes...
I used to think he was kind of interesting until I found out he micromanages his employees and he's a general lunatic who ignores physics in favour of "disrupting" things.
From what I have read, he is basically an ass. But, he is right to disrupt. Even if all of his endeavors do not work out over all, he has succeeded in bringing a new open mindset to a few industries that were honestly stagnating.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
Falcon Heavy
Which only goes into low Earth orbit, my point is the ideas of going to the Moon or Mars with single stage are pretty much out of the question.
From what I have read, he is basically an ass. But, he is right to disrupt. Even if all of his endeavors do not work out over all, he has succeeded in bringing a new open mindset to a few industries that were honestly stagnating.
I'm not saying disrupting things is bad, but it is used as a term so vague and often ridiculous now that it's lost all meaning. Much of the time "disrupt" means to do something that's already been done, but put a fancy web front end on it or make it an iPhone app. Additionally, people often get so overly confident that they waste billions and billions of dollars trying to disrupt something literally impossible (uBeam is another great example), but when it comes to space travel with rocket fuel, 99% of all those problems were solved 60 years ago, they just want to ignore what's been done and start all over.
It's not disruption to start over and pretend you're a revolutionary or learning something new when I could have told you the Soviets or the Americans ran into the same problems and solved them even before colour TV was common. The single stage rocket for beyond-Earth orbit is a great example of this. They could say tons of money just by reading about what's already been done and take it seriously. The attitude with a lot of private space travel firms is that this cannot be done or the work done before is a joke and meaningless, and not even worth looking at.
If he really wants to disrupt, he needs to push for nuclear rocket engines. They work, they were built 50 years ago, but they aren't even seen as an option by anyone anymore because of "oh no, nuclear rockets in space, that's terrible, it's not like space itself is full of radiation." They go a hell of a lot faster than chemical rockets and last a lot longer, but rarely ever do I see people from NASA/ESA/Russia promote them as a viable option when they absolutely do exist, that's the crazy part, I'm not even talking about something theoretical, I'm talking about something the size of a refrigerator putting out the same energy as a hydroelectric dam. I'm talking the Moon in a day and Mars in a month, not a week and eight months instead.
Seriously, no really, this technology exists outside YouTube conspiracy videos, in fact I'm not sure any of them even know about it since it's actual science.
We could get to the Moon or Mars a lot faster, cheaper, and more efficiently, but nuclear energy is considered so boogyman that we literally ignore it as even an option. I see people online, in documentaries, etc always talking about "but chemical rockets don't go that fast!" but never mention nuclear rockets. It's not magic, it's not the Hutchinson Effect or something, it exists and it's ignored, and I imagine once someone like Musk discovers it, he'll bring it back and say "see what I invented" and get all the credit. And, believe it or not, I'm 100% fine with that since state owned space industries are too stupid to take advantage of a technology they were going to use before most people on this web site were even born.
Lest we forget all the ships and nuclear sub marines.... guess that was too dangerous to do too, oh wait.
-
The problem that most folks see with Nuclear powered rockets... is what happens when one inevitably explodes on the launch pad?
Do we really want the lowest bid contractor building a nuclear reactor? lol.
I think that nuclear power is good and safe enough to use, but I'd recommend launching from the Dust Bowl rather than Cape Canaveral.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
The problem that most folks see with Nuclear powered rockets... is what happens when one inevitably explodes on the launch pad?
Well, explosions on the launch pad these days are rare. The amount of fissile material though is not that much compared to a standard nuclear power plant, but also due to media and hippie paranoia convincing everyone that all radiation of any amount at all will sterilize the entire Earth, you can store it in a container similar to what's used for transporting nuclear waste, and in orbit have it open up and your device come out, or depending on the size, only store the fuel itself in there. This way if it explodes on the launch pad, it flies away from the explosion not any more dangerous than the other material, plus then you can recover it.
Do we really want the lowest bid contractor building a nuclear reactor? lol.
I didn't mention anything about contractors, plus you're ignoring the fact there are hundreds of nuclear reactors in ships and submarines which were built by contractors and we never hear about them in the media at all.
I think that nuclear power is good and safe enough to use, but I'd recommend launching from the Dust Bowl rather than Cape Canaveral.
What/where is the Dust Bowl? You launch from Cape Kennedy (Yes, I refuse to change the name back) because you do gravitational free loading, by going more north (I assume this bowl is more north) you lose that, plus also launching from Florida failure is over the ocean, launching from within the rest of the US, you're talking about failure over land, that's far, far more dangerous for any rocket.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
The problem that most folks see with Nuclear powered rockets... is what happens when one inevitably explodes on the launch pad?
Well, explosions on the launch pad these days are rare. The amount of fissile material though is not that much compared to a standard nuclear power plant, but also due to media and hippie paranoia convincing everyone that all radiation of any amount at all will sterilize the entire Earth, you can store it in a container similar to what's used for transporting nuclear waste, and in orbit have it open up and your device come out, or depending on the size, only store the fuel itself in there. This way if it explodes on the launch pad, it flies away from the explosion not any more dangerous than the other material, plus then you can recover it.
Reminds me of the crazies protesting at a nuclear power plant, and the people walking around giving out bananas. One of the bananas contained more radiation than leaked out from the plant every year. Two interesting things to me, #1: we're very good at keeping radiation from those old, horribly designed, nuc plants from getting out, #2: Bananas are good at absorbing radiation.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
The problem that most folks see with Nuclear powered rockets... is what happens when one inevitably explodes on the launch pad?
Well, explosions on the launch pad these days are rare. The amount of fissile material though is not that much compared to a standard nuclear power plant, but also due to media and hippie paranoia convincing everyone that all radiation of any amount at all will sterilize the entire Earth, you can store it in a container similar to what's used for transporting nuclear waste, and in orbit have it open up and your device come out, or depending on the size, only store the fuel itself in there. This way if it explodes on the launch pad, it flies away from the explosion not any more dangerous than the other material, plus then you can recover it.
While rare, a nuclear explosion anywhere would be a catastrophe, though you do raise a good point about the system not having as much radioactive materials as a nuclear power plant...
Do we really want the lowest bid contractor building a nuclear reactor? lol.
I didn't mention anything about contractors, plus you're ignoring the fact there are hundreds of nuclear reactors in ships and submarines which were built by contractors and we never hear about them in the media at all.
True. I think I was trying to be sarcastic there, lol. We also never hear about the nuclear submarines exploding anywhere.
I think that nuclear power is good and safe enough to use, but I'd recommend launching from the Dust Bowl rather than Cape Canaveral.
What/where is the Dust Bowl? You launch from Cape Kennedy (Yes, I refuse to change the name back) because you do gravitational free loading, by going more north (I assume this bowl is more north) you lose that, plus also launching from Florida failure is over the ocean, launching from within the rest of the US, you're talking about failure over land, that's far, far more dangerous for any rocket.
Well, this is good to learn something every day.
The Dust Bowl is in the desert areas around Arizona & Nevada (I'm not looking at a map, so I may be of by a state or three). But you do raise a good point about failure being near the ocean as opposed to landlocked as well.
I was also under the impression that a nuclear reactor was self-sustaining to a degree?
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
The problem that most folks see with Nuclear powered rockets... is what happens when one inevitably explodes on the launch pad?
Well, explosions on the launch pad these days are rare. The amount of fissile material though is not that much compared to a standard nuclear power plant, but also due to media and hippie paranoia convincing everyone that all radiation of any amount at all will sterilize the entire Earth, you can store it in a container similar to what's used for transporting nuclear waste, and in orbit have it open up and your device come out, or depending on the size, only store the fuel itself in there. This way if it explodes on the launch pad, it flies away from the explosion not any more dangerous than the other material, plus then you can recover it.
While rare, a nuclear explosion anywhere would be a catastrophe, though you do raise a good point about the system not having as much radioactive materials as a nuclear power plant...
Do we really want the lowest bid contractor building a nuclear reactor? lol.
I didn't mention anything about contractors, plus you're ignoring the fact there are hundreds of nuclear reactors in ships and submarines which were built by contractors and we never hear about them in the media at all.
True. I think I was trying to be sarcastic there, lol. We also never hear about the nuclear submarines exploding anywhere.
I think that nuclear power is good and safe enough to use, but I'd recommend launching from the Dust Bowl rather than Cape Canaveral.
What/where is the Dust Bowl? You launch from Cape Kennedy (Yes, I refuse to change the name back) because you do gravitational free loading, by going more north (I assume this bowl is more north) you lose that, plus also launching from Florida failure is over the ocean, launching from within the rest of the US, you're talking about failure over land, that's far, far more dangerous for any rocket.
Well, this is good to learn something every day.
The Dust Bowl is in the desert areas around Arizona & Nevada (I'm not looking at a map, so I may be of by a state or three). But you do raise a good point about failure being near the ocean as opposed to landlocked as well.
I was also under the impression that a nuclear reactor was self-sustaining to a degree?
Keep in mind that the nuclear piece doesn't have to be providing thrust anymore either, just electrical power for a new drive systems that we really have no idea why it works.
-
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
The problem that most folks see with Nuclear powered rockets... is what happens when one inevitably explodes on the launch pad?
Well, explosions on the launch pad these days are rare. The amount of fissile material though is not that much compared to a standard nuclear power plant, but also due to media and hippie paranoia convincing everyone that all radiation of any amount at all will sterilize the entire Earth, you can store it in a container similar to what's used for transporting nuclear waste, and in orbit have it open up and your device come out, or depending on the size, only store the fuel itself in there. This way if it explodes on the launch pad, it flies away from the explosion not any more dangerous than the other material, plus then you can recover it.
While rare, a nuclear explosion anywhere would be a catastrophe, though you do raise a good point about the system not having as much radioactive materials as a nuclear power plant...
Do we really want the lowest bid contractor building a nuclear reactor? lol.
I didn't mention anything about contractors, plus you're ignoring the fact there are hundreds of nuclear reactors in ships and submarines which were built by contractors and we never hear about them in the media at all.
True. I think I was trying to be sarcastic there, lol. We also never hear about the nuclear submarines exploding anywhere.
I think that nuclear power is good and safe enough to use, but I'd recommend launching from the Dust Bowl rather than Cape Canaveral.
What/where is the Dust Bowl? You launch from Cape Kennedy (Yes, I refuse to change the name back) because you do gravitational free loading, by going more north (I assume this bowl is more north) you lose that, plus also launching from Florida failure is over the ocean, launching from within the rest of the US, you're talking about failure over land, that's far, far more dangerous for any rocket.
Well, this is good to learn something every day.
The Dust Bowl is in the desert areas around Arizona & Nevada (I'm not looking at a map, so I may be of by a state or three). But you do raise a good point about failure being near the ocean as opposed to landlocked as well.
I was also under the impression that a nuclear reactor was self-sustaining to a degree?
Keep in mind that the nuclear piece doesn't have to be providing thrust anymore either, just electrical power for a new drive systems that we really have no idea why it works.
True, but I was also referring to things already fully functional, not in early development/testing, and I make a point of that because NASA loves pet projects and, hell, they could go to Mars now with current technology, but instead they need to build a Moon base, and have all this other crap that hasn't even been invented yet.
-
Dust Bowl was from 1935 - 1940 and was primarily in Kansas but also Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Kansas is where it was most famous but Oklahoma had the mass exodus that resulted in the "Okies in California" of which one of my Linux friends is a descendent and about which the "Grapes of Wrath" was written.
http://cdn3.volusion.com/9xeqe.ayzy4/v/vspfiles/photos/UM-30158-2.jpg?1391943365
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Dust Bowl was from 1935 - 1940 and was primarily in Kansas but also Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Kansas is where it was most famous but Oklahoma had the mass exodus that resulted in the "Okies in California" of which one of my Linux friends is a descendent and about which the "Grapes of Wrath" was written.
http://cdn3.volusion.com/9xeqe.ayzy4/v/vspfiles/photos/UM-30158-2.jpg?1391943365
Thanks for that!
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
I was also under the impression that a nuclear reactor was self-sustaining to a degree?
Yes, that's the idea of course.
-
@scottalanmiller I knew about that, which is why I was confused that "launching from the Dust Bowl" being an event in history.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller I knew about that, which is why I was confused that "launching from the Dust Bowl" being an event in history.
I didn't say it was history... I was suggesting it might be a good idea to launch a nuclear powered space ship from there. Geography is not one of my strong suits, lol.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller I knew about that, which is why I was confused that "launching from the Dust Bowl" being an event in history.
I didn't say it was history... I was suggesting it might be a good idea to launch a nuclear powered space ship from there. Geography is not one of my strong suits, lol.
I know you didn't say that, but my knowledge of "Dust Bowl" is "an event in history" so I as confused as to why you used it as a location.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller I knew about that, which is why I was confused that "launching from the Dust Bowl" being an event in history.
I didn't say it was history... I was suggesting it might be a good idea to launch a nuclear powered space ship from there. Geography is not one of my strong suits, lol.
I know you didn't say that, but my knowledge of "Dust Bowl" is "an event in history" so I as confused as to why you used it as a location.
I've heard it used as a location only in reference to the "Dust Bowl states" I think that's what @dafyre was going for.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller I knew about that, which is why I was confused that "launching from the Dust Bowl" being an event in history.
I didn't say it was history... I was suggesting it might be a good idea to launch a nuclear powered space ship from there. Geography is not one of my strong suits, lol.
I know you didn't say that, but my knowledge of "Dust Bowl" is "an event in history" so I as confused as to why you used it as a location.
I've heard it used as a location only in reference to the "Dust Bowl states" I think that's what @dafyre was going for.
^ That.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller I knew about that, which is why I was confused that "launching from the Dust Bowl" being an event in history.
I didn't say it was history... I was suggesting it might be a good idea to launch a nuclear powered space ship from there. Geography is not one of my strong suits, lol.
The dust bowl area is populated farm land, not a dusty area today though
It was only dusty until 1940 from a combination of bad farming and a drought. It was the secondary trigger of the Great Depression - the stock market crashed in 1929 and more or less simultaneously the American midwest faced an epic drought that caused US food production to completely collapse so food prices skyrocketed while incomes and jobs disappeared. It left something like 20% of American farmers without working farms and those that remained with very little food production.
