Patricia and Gadgets

Patricia asked: I have a technology question. Do you think we will see the computer, the television, and the cell phone combined into one device in the near future? If so, how far?

Ah, yes.

How soon?

Yesterday...

Check out this and this and this and this.

The question isn't really if we'll see it but what seeing it would buy us? I can play videos on my $100 phone. I can play mp3s. I can surf the internet. I can calculate tips, and schedule things. I can check my email. If I need more functionality, I can get it for only a couple hundred more, including writing files and updating my blog, etc.

What else do I need? Well, if there's something, chances are the Japanese already have it. But, my mind boggles at what it could be.

Read more...

For JD: Tell Me About Roswell

JD asked: On the topic of conspiracy theories, I have a question. What's your take on the whole Area 51 story? Do you think aliens really crashed in Roswell, NM? Is the government's party line that details are classified for security purposes a rational explanation -- or proof that something is DEFINITELY going on.

Ah, Roswell. You may find this hard to believe, but I’ve never heard anyone at NASA talk about this, discuss it, etc. Apparently, we either don’t give it much credence (which I find most likely) or were part of the coverup, though not myself personally. Hell, I wasn’t even born back then. So, for that reason, I didn’t know much about it. But I do love to learn.

So, I checked it out. Here’s my nutshell summary. Some farmer found some lightweight debris, rubber sticks, tape and foil, about 5 pounds worth, 30 miles outside Roswell (per the description he gave the newspaper after he’d reported it to the Sheriff). Debris descriptions were in keeping with a lightweight flyer attached to a balloon that disintegrated. 1-3 weeks later, he mentioned it to the local Sheriff who called the local AF Base who came and collected the debris. The description generally jibes with those of the farmer’s children as well. The Air Force described the data at the time as a “flying disc” and then a weather balloon. Air Force position is that it was residue from a top secret high altitude balloon project from Project Mogul and that it represented residue from a hexagonal disc suspended from a weather balloon made with reflective material. This would explain not only the quick collection of debris but the immediate description.

No one, apparently at the time, saw any lights or UFOs (in the Roswell area) and, after these brief mentions in the news, nothing more was said on this topic for 33 years, when one individual (former Air Force flunky) came forward with a different story – that changed multiple times, I might add – and then a selection of other stories cropped up over the next decade. Somehow, that original five pounds of debris transformed into a crashed vehicle capable of sustaining life support (and multiple aliens).

Yeah.

I can look at this multiple ways. First is Occam’s Razor which tells me the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Which means some rancher found some stuff on his property from a top secret military operation and they came and took the debris and told him not to talk about it. This impression is reinforced by the long stretch of time before anyone came in with a different story, the lack of first-hand and credible witnesses with a different story.

The burden of proof, in my opinion, is on those promoting a very unlikely scenario on many different levels. This goes for documents that have since surfaced with unknown provenance that can be demonstrably proven to be younger than their ostensible dates (MJ12 documents). I’ve included a debris photo for the crashed Soyuz 1 (where Cosmonaut Komorov was lost during reentry) as an example of a single person vehicle crash so you can see how challenging it is for me to envision the original description (or even the much later descriptions) as a crash of a crewed vessel. Even with the worst case crash site debris field description (about 1 square mile), it doesn’t hold a candle to even the debris field of Columbia (~2500 square miles per the CAIB report). One fact is all you need to disprove something, folks. Especially if we’re supposed to be describing a vehicle that has theoretically interplanetary if not interstellar capabilities.


And, what possible incentive would the USAF or the US Government have to cover up alien encounters? If we had proof of ET, what an incentive to beef up our space defenses like no one’s business, yet, ten years later, when Air Force, Army and Navy were duking it out to see who was going to lead man’s trek into space, the government chose to hand off to a civilian agency. I find it hard to imagine that our space programs would have been truncated and cut off as frequently and painfully as they have been if our government had any real appreciable evidence of extra terrestrials. Truth is, if we knew about aliens, the government could have likely frightened us into doing whatever and spending whatever they wanted.

But I have no problem understanding the motivations of those that might be embellishing, exaggerating or even making up stuff from the past. The need to be famous or get your name in a book, even off-handedly, can be compelling. And, since we had people with an agenda doing the “research,” their results which happen to jibe with their notions ahead of time are no surprise. Bet they made a pretty penny on it, too.

Now, does that mean all the UFO sightings are nonsense? No, I don’t take it that that follows. I’d have to see the evidence involved in each one before I’d make up my mind. There are some pretty crazy things that happen that are hard to explain.

Do I believe in extraterrestrial life? You bet. For two reasons.

First, I’m a scientist and it’s inconceivable to me that, given all the stars and galaxies that exist in the known universe, all the planets and worlds that must exist, I find it incredibly unlikely that only this planet has had the correct formula that allows and fosters life.

Secondly, I believe in the possibility of a higher power (or more than one) and it’s inconceivable to me that the rest of the universe exists just for our astronomical pleasure. Nature lets nothing go to waste and I see no reason to assume, if a deity exists, that he would do leave a universe of possibilities unexplored.

PS, check out here on the lowdown on that UFO picture, an actual NASA picture from Apollo 16.

Read more...

For Flit: Lagrange Points

Flit asked: Lagrange points? should I know what those are? Suppose I could google but it's past my bedtime and I'm still not done the first (of 8) folders I wanted to get through...

Here’s the most simple explanation I can make: Lagrange points are the points in a two body system (like a celestial body and a large satellite) where the gravitational forces and centripetal forces effectively cancel out so that an object (which has a negligible mass relative to the other two bodies) moves such that it remains in place relative to the two bodies. That last part is important, because the object doesn’t “stop” – it’s moving with the two bodies but stays in the same location relative to their location (see second picture).



It’s often compared to geostationary and it’s a good analogy. Geostationary could sound like a “stationary satellite” – but it’s not. It’s moving quite briskly, orbiting the planet once a day so that it remains over the same area of the earth as it turns. Relative to the surface of the earth, it’s stationary. Note that geostationary satellites are only located over the equator. If you put them at a different inclination (even if the period is the same) it will veer above and below the equator during the course of the day.

In this case, the object is stationary relative to the center of gravity of both bodies, not the surfaces of the bodies, so it wouldn’t necessarily look to be in the same spot from the surface of either body. However, it would always be in the same spot, orbit-wise. Why is this exciting?

Couple of reasons. First, all the forces canceling out means that this location has a very low gravity gradient, true zero gravity. The orbit would be readily maintained with minimal effort unlike things in low earth orbit today.

The points are not all made equal. L1, which lies on the line between the two bodies, is the optimal place to enter orbit of either body with minimal energy. In theory, there perfect place to provide, say, a moon servicing station between the earth and the moon. The earth-sun L1 is the perfect place to get sun observations (without worrying about being blocked).

Conversely, the sun-earth L2 is the perfect place to get space observations without being blinded by the sun’s light (as long as you have a non-solar array dependent power system). It always has its view of the sun in eclipse by the earth. That’s where we intend to put the James Webb telescope (the successor to HST) and we have a couple there now with more to come.

The L3 point for the sun-earth interaction is actually on the far side of the Sun, as if in counterweight to our own planet in the same orbit. In this case, the earth would always be eclipsed by the sun. However, given that there are many other bodies in the solar system besides the earth and moon, the sun-earth L3 point is actually quite unstable. Ah, that imperfect universe. There’s also an earth-moon L3 where one would be facing the other side of the moon (which would eclipse the earth) all the time. I presume it’s more stable.

Actually, all three of the collinear Lagrange points are somewhat unstable. They’re stable in two directions, but nudged them toward one body or the other and they’ll go readily.

The last two Lagrange points, that are oddly triangular, are the most stable (assuming one of the massive objects is much larger than the other). This is the spot often discussed as an excellent place for a human space colony as the orbit is self-correcting and generally very stable.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Historical (and Unmatched) Spaceflight

flit asked about Lagrange points and I meant to get to them. But I'm swamped and it ain't gonna happen tonight. So, instead, I thought I'd pass along an interesting bit of trivia about one of the most interesting spaceflights ever: Soyuz T-15 and the extended stay mission that resulted, including sojourns on two different stations.

That's right. Two. Different. Stations.

Historically the Soviet Union (and/or the Russians) have been the experts at juggling multiple concurrent flights like no one else, and that goes double for space stations. They've had ten of them since 1971 and they have a sizable chunk of the International Space Station.

When they first put up the Mir Space Station, they still had another station up, Salyut 7. Admittedly, it was plagued with problems and funding was tight, making trips up challenging. So, they made the best possible use of the first Mir flight. First, the crew of Soyuz T-15, Cosmonauts Leonid Kizim and Solovyov Vladimir, docked to Mir, checked it out and got it going. Six weeks later, they undocked and cruised over to the Salyut 7 which was dead in sky, dark and ice bound. They revived it, got it back into working order and then removed a number of experiments from it's interior.

Then, as if that wasn't impressive enough, 20 days later, they flew back to the Mir Space Station and transferred the equipment they'd collected from Salyut 7.

Did I mention they did all this in 1986? Cool, no?

Read more...

For Aron: What About the Rovers?

Aron Sora said: We have a lunar orbital picture of the landing site, what more do they want. Are they just saying this to tick NASA off enough to give them a free ride to the moon. I heard they [lunar rovers] still will work, they just need new batteries. Is that true?

As for the moon hoax crowd, I doubt it. I think they're just not quite all there, but it's only an opinion.

As for the lunar rovers, though, Aron, I honestly have no idea. And I feel safe in saying no one can say definitively one way or the other. After all, no one's been by to give them a safety inspection sticker in several decades.

What they probably meant was, in theory, there's no reason they wouldn't work if they had new batteries. Why?

First, let's talk briefly about the space environment and why that can be hard on equipment. There are several environments in low earth orbit that can degrade equipment, particularly nonmetallics: atomic oxygen, radiation, thermal extremes, UV light. Atomic oxygen isn't an issue on the surface of the moon, but everything else applies.

One of the advantages on the moon is that there's no weathering of any kind. Except for light/thermal extremes, there are no changes up there, no weathering, no rain, no wind. Just a few meteors.

This is one place where the old outdated electronics that run the lunar rover can be an advantage over the highly function and compact electronics of today. The more you do in a smaller package, the more susceptible to radiation you are. Older electronics have worked for ages, including a number of long range probes that have been sending data back for decades.

The rovers saw a lot of wear and tear before we abandoned them. But they've seen none since. Also, as they are primarily metal, they are unlikely to be too affected by radiation, thermal extremes and even UV. If the electronics are OK and new batteries are installed, they'll likely run fine, though I'd want to test the seat straps before I sat on it.

Read more...

For The Mother: Retrograde Orbits/Spin

The Mother asked: How is it that Venus spins backward? Shouldn't the momentum that created the solar system keep everything spinning the same direction?

In theory, I believe you're right. Of the planets in the solar system, all of them orbit in the same direction so it makes sense that they'd rotate in that direction, too. The fact that so many planets rotate in the same direction (i.e. the same direction they're orbiting in) argues it, too.

But Venus doesn't and Uranus is tilted so far on it's axis (~98 degrees) that, depending on own's perspective, it can also be said to rotates backward. But really it's more lopsided.

So, why Venus and Venus only. Well, Venus is not the only item with retrograde motion. Several moons around Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune orbit in a retrograde way. Several of these items are believed to be captured Kuiper belt items. Kuiper belt items are items like comets and some very far flung planetary-type bodies that are far beyond the edge of the planets. Some objects, like comets, we see every so often because they have highly elliptical orbits and they can crash into planets (as happened to Jupiter a few years ago) or be captured, in theory, by the gravitational pull of a planet. As these items have their own spin and orbit (and will be going very fast as they get closer to the Sun), they can readily get caught by a planet, but not necessarily be in plane or going in the same direction when caught (it depends on whether it's incoming or out going and from what direction they approach the planet that captures them).

That, of course, doesn't apply to Venus. Venus is very similar in composition and characteristics to Earth and has a very circular orbit (which would be unlikely in a captured high speed body), in fact the most circular orbit in the solar system. So, why would it spin backwards even at a very slow rate?

The easy answer is, we don't know. There are speculations, of course. One is that the current year/day represents an equilibrium state between gravitational tidal locking by the Sun that tends to slow the rotation rate, and an atmospheric tide created by the solar heating of Venus' thick atmosphere. Ironically, in addition, the periods of Venus' rotation and of its orbit are synchronized such that it always presents the same face toward Earth when the two planets are at their closest approach. Whether this is a resonance effect or merely a coincidence is not known.

But there are other speculations. Alex Alemi and David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology, using their models, believe that Venus once had a moon (it doesn't have one now) that had been formed from a cataclysmic impact event. Ironically, they believe the retrograde motion now is the result of another cataclysmic impact that changed the rotation and, ironically, pulled the moon back into the planet. This, they believe, happened billions of years ago. Since the surface of the moon is highly volcanic with a new surface, much like the Earth has, there's no indication of any such impacts on the planet's surface.

Just goes to show that there are many strange things going on in the big wide universe. And we've got a long ways to go before we get more than scratching the surface on figuring out how what we can see today happened. By then, of course, we'll likely have a whole new set of mysteries to figure out.

Read more...

For Shakespeare: What About Saturn?

Shakespeare said: That is too cool. And the picture! WOW! And think, I'd have forever to work every day, and I could get so much done in a year on that planet. Then again, my laptop would melt, and I would too, so the whole point is moot. Any details about Saturn? It's my personal favorite, after Earth (since Earth gives me an actual place to exist).


For any student of the solar system, I can't recommend Nine Planets website highly enough. It's always the first place I go when checking out another planet. Wikipedia has some good poop, too. So, what do they have to say about Saturn?

First, it's ironic that the arguably most beautiful planet in the solar system should be named after a God who is often used to personify old age. Not to mention Saturn's unsavory tendency to eat his own children.

Much of what we say about Saturn is comparing her to Jupiter, the titan of the gas giants. Both planets are composed primarily hydrogen (75%) and helium(25%), with traces of ammonia, methane, water and rock. Saturn is the least dense of the gas giants, at only 70% of the density of water. Like Jupiter, it is subject to visible storms (like the hexagonal storm to the left), generates it's own heat (though to a lesser extent), has a magnetic field (to a much lesser extent) and has a large number of moons. We used to say, categorically, that Saturn had the most moons actually, but they've discovered so many recently, I'm not sure we have a set number. Saturn has 34 named moons which would seem plenty, but apparently wasn't. About 200 moons have been observed, 61 in stable orbits.
Jupiter has a faint set of rings as well, but no planet in the solar system has rings as spectacular as Saturn. When astronomers first found her, she confused them as she looked oblate (and is, actually, more on that in a moment). When Earth is in plane with her rings, they "disappear" confusing those early astonomers even more.

She's quite luminous, perhaps more than her heat-generating processes can justify and her rings are particularly brilliant, presumed to be largely ice and ice-covered rocks. Saturn is not really spherical, rather a sort of flattened sphere because of her fluid state and rapid rotation (days are ~10.5 hours long, but not everything rotates at the same speed) pull her equatorial plane out a bit.

No one seems to be quite sure what creates Saturn's rings (or any other rings), but the consensus seems to be that they can't remain indefinitely, that they must be regenerated. It has also been noted that several moons are pivotal in maintaining and affecting the rings.

Really, there is so much good reading available on Saturn and her rings and her many fascinating moons. You should check out my links and learn more.

Read more...

For Anonymous: Where Does It End?

Anonymous asked : Do you ever think there will be a limit to how advanced technology can get with the resources we have? I mean there has to be a limit to how small you can make the components to things and still have them work just as efficient and alot of advancements have to do with efficiency and making useful things easier to use by making them smaller. Do you ever think we will be able to manipulate atoms more efficiently?

You know, if you look at the history of computers, for instance, where we are today was almost imaginably distant from where we started. I can remember, when I was in high school, working with a computer with no hard drive, 64K of RAM where we stored data on a tape cassette. When I got a first computer, it had a monochome monitor (green), an 8" disk drive and a 20 MB drive. I was in heaven.

I have files now that are four times larger than that first disk drive. I have a cell phone that has more computing power (and memory, both RAM and storage) than that first computer. My point is, if you told me back then that I'd be able to get a netbook 20 years later that had 160 GB hard drive and was almost palm sized. It's like magic.

But, when I talk to people in the business, they describe methods to save memory that have a hundred/thousand times more memory in a smaller volume, less mass. My husband, who loves doing research on nanotechnology, gets lots of literature on machines that are desperately small, electron microscope small. Little tiny robots that have room to crawl on the head of a pin. ICs and circuit boards burnt into tiny fragments of semi conductor.

Is there a limit? Probably but I have no idea what it is. Right now, it's manipulating molecules and atoms. Some day, that may not be the limit for us.

I believe one thing, though. I believe we've only scratched the surface of what we might be capable of, of what we'll do and learn. And I suspect, if we look at it 50, 100 years from now, the limits we thought we had will have been long past.

Read more...

For Shakespeare: Finding Good Blogs

Shakespeare said: My problem is in the other direction: I have trouble knowing where to go to find more good blogs to read. I'm pretty eclectic about it all, but I like people with intelligence and humor (like you and JD, for example)... and I haven't found enough of those to keep me entertained. How can I go about finding more good blogs to read?

This is a fairly easy one and I bet you're already doing it.

There are some good ways to find blogs, of course, including entrecard, blogexplosion, blog catalog, even clicking on "next blog" at the top of one's blogspot blog. And I bet there are dozens more options that my readers will bring up. I've used these and I still do, to an extent. I've found good blogs this way (particularly EC).

However, the best way I've found to find good blogs, the kind worth filling up my blog list with, is exploring the blog links of my favorite blogs. True, you start slow, if you start from scratch, and might only have a handful. Follow intelligent comments back - it's almost always worth it. And, when you find a blog worth revisiting, take some time to explore their blog lists and trace back their commenters.

Chances are, the people who like your favorite blogs are writing blogs that would appeal as well. Pretty soon, you find you have a fine circle of quality blogs, filled with the kind of things or thinking that interests you.

And, of course, others will add to this advice.

Read more...

For Freakshownumerouno: Tarot Reading

Freakshownumerouno asked: I have a question, would you do a tarot reading for me i was wondering if there might be anything soon to come with my live life [love life?]. Please and thank you.

OK, I'm going to have to be more careful. I just realized I'd missed this earlier. Sorry, Freakshownumerouno. I'm going to work on a new system to keep track of this. My apologies.

So, on to the reading. I'm kind of pleased. I haven't done a tarot reading in some time. Remember, of course, that a remote reading by someone you can't even see is likely to be uncertain even when dealing with a professional (I'm not) and even if you believe (which is entirely up to you). Take the reading with a grain of salt.

Past - XIII Death (reversed) - Stagnation, inertia, grieving over past loss... This is a card where change, much needed growth, has not happened. Since you ask about love, this could indicate either relationships that became mired in inertia or a refusal to move past a relationship long lost. In either case, romance can only bloom where a growth and change are part of the mix.

Present - Wands V - Five of wands is a card that talks about struggle, juggling and conflict. Although it argues a successful career and sensuality, there are power struggles and barriers, contentiousness and competitiveness. Such relationships can be exciting, fascinating, even stimulating, but their long term prospects are limited until one can find a bit of peace, a bit of common ground, a bit of compromise.

Future - Swords III - Domestic strife and discord, melancholy, hurt feelings and mental alienation. Divorce. This is not a propitious card if you have a relationship now and isn't particularly hopeful if you don't.

It seems past, present and future either argue stagnation or conflict. Perhaps you attract (or are attracted to) the kind of relationships that aren't healthy for you. Given that the cards didn't have any good news, I think I'll ask for some advice, perhaps some insight that might help you change the pattern and find the kind of love that will make your life better not more contentious.

XII The Hanged Man - the Hanged Man is generally not a happy card but it holds a kernal of good advice. In this case, it says to look to yourself, grow, use your pain to learn and improve yourself. The card tells me (and, therefore you) to not look for your luck to change or for something different to come along, but to look within yourself for the key to change. You'll have to address the issues within yourself before you can find happiness without.

Swords IX (reversed) - this card appears to be a refinement of the previous card (a direction to pursue for self-improvement). Swords IX reversed speaks of worry, malice, nitpicking, criticism, of obsessing. Of needing to soften one's nature or be unhappy.

This wasn't a particularly cheerful reading (sorry), but the cards still offer hope for a better future, not to come to you, but to create for yourself.

Read more...

Another Update for Bob

Long long ago in an old post, Bob Johnson asked why we didn't just take pictures of the landing sites and "prove" we landed on the moon. I didn't know the answer per se but I did note that I saw little reason, even if we did have the pictures, to think anyone would be convinced.

I mean, if you don't believe the tracking by several different countries or the video or the unprecedented photographs unlike any ever taken before or the samples of soil older than anything ever found on earth or the actual people who wandered about up there, I fail to see how showing a photo of the landing site, no matter how convincing, would convince someone who was willing to ignore all the available proof.

But, in case I'm wrong:


This is good stuff. There's the LEM, the scientific hardware left behind and a neat little trail of footy prints. The truth is, it IS cool to be able to see the site of where we've been before. So, I'm glad they took it whether it convinces anyone or not.

And, if someone who felt there wasn't sufficient proof before was convinced by this, let me know. I'd like to understand the reasoning.

Read more...

For Aron: Space Habitation...

Aron asked: I have a question, so you can participate in space settlement day, what is your opinion of space habitation?

The challenge I have in answering this question is that I don't really think about space habitation on its own but as a potential side effect of human space exploration.

Am I absolutely for human space exploration? Yes. Do I think space colonization, either on other planets or in space is a natural by product of space exploration, do I foresee someday permanent colonies in orbit, on the Moon, perhaps elsewhere in our solar system and beyond? Yes. I think we will be able to overcome the challenges some day. I can't tell you when.

If you'd asked me 4o years ago (assuming I was old enough to give a cogent answer), I would have said a space colony would exist before the end of the century. I truly believe, if we had gone to the moon for the right reasons (for all mankind instead of to one-up the Russians) or von Braun (who was working toward this for the right reasons) had lived longer and had his way, it would have happened already. But we've wasted the talent and know-how that first put us on the moon, wasted the momentum, failed to follow through when the world was with us on this, when the public understood this was more than patriotism and all about the real future of the human race - even if the politicians didn't.

But we didn't and that's water under the bridge. The mindset, however, the impetus, the realization that this is key to our long term survival, that journeying to the stars is an inevitable step in our future that we can't begin too soon is lacking in the general public. Oh, there are folks that understand it and people around the world who can see beyond right here and right now, but there are too many still who can't see beyond what's happening to them today into what the future needs to be.

Until we get that mindset rampant in the general public, any future will be dependent on the inspiration and technical skill of the few dreamers and those in power they can woo to their side. It can happen, though it will likely take longer and mean movement forward will be in fits and starts, involve failures (perhaps tragic ones) and be unlikely to progress as quickly or as completely as we are truly able.

And I'm not just talking about space habitation but space exploration as a whole. Every failure, sets things back tenfold, which scares me. If only amateurs are brave enough and inspired enough to pursue space exploration and space habitation, it seems more likely that failures will occur (I hope I'm wrong). On the other hand, we've certainly seen some impressive successes among those that have not had much prior experience.

In my opinion, going forward intelligently and as safely as possible stands the best chance to bring us to success and even, perhaps, relight that sense of wonderment and exploration so key to our long term success.

Space habitation in the interests of science I take as a given. Perhaps hotels and the like to support tourism can be viable. To make space colonies for the general populace , we'll have to make them self-sufficient because sucking more resources from the Earth does nothing to help long term survival; however, if we can find a way grow food, make air, build shelters using the native materials, we will open up a universe of possibilities. We will have fulfilled the potential Apollo 11 carved for us.

I would love to see space colonies, perhaps at our Lagrange points or the moon before the end of my life, would love to know people have set foot not only on the moon, but on other surfaces within this solar system. I don't know if we will, but I will certainly work to make it so.

Read more...

For Lee: Where Was the Rover

Lee asked me (before we left for the reunion): Hey, if there's one thing I'm skeptical about, it's the rover. How'd they get that on the moon anyway?

Given that tomorrow is the anniversary of the first moon landing (sans rover), I thought it would be a good one for today so here goes. Here's a schematic (of unknown accuracy) of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM).


This is how we got there. Of course, the crew was tucked up in the top, but they kept the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) in Quadrant 1 (which, of course, isn't labeled) folded up neatly. The first crewmember would release it from the storage and then the second crewmember would angle it down using pulleys and levers. Then, they'd unfold it and away it would go. Although a svelte 210 kg, it could carry 490 kg over some pretty challenging terrain. Very nice.


The rover was actually a pretty slick vehicle for being designed in just 17 months, but it had a problem with the flimsy fenders that came off on at least two missions (the second time repaired with some EVA maps, clamps and, yes, duct tape). Although the rover still drove fine, it threw up dust over anything and caused overheating and battery problems. The vehicles are still up there with all the other stuff that was too heavy to bring back.

Only three flights used LRVs, Apollo 15, 16 and 17 where their range was drastically improved over going by foot.

And, since I spotted this as I was looking this up ('cause I didn't know), this gorgeous picture of Apollo 11's LEM (the Eagle) in lunar orbit. Enjoy.

Read more...

For Relax Max: Am I mellowing?

Relax Max said: I just had something disconcerting happen to me. I deleted a comment I had made because it seemed to rude. Does this mean I am turning into a considerate person? Or that I am trying to become better? It is a bit disconcerting. I used to just make honest comments and let the chips fall where they fell. Is this something I should worry about or should I just see if it passes? Any honest opinion would be appreciated.

I think this is an excellent question. I'm a proponent of honest discussion and note that honest discussion can certainly lead to heated discussion. Sometimes it leads to downright nastiness. I'm going to discuss what I strive to do (and where I fail) and then try to answer your question.

As a general plain-talker, I'm not immune. I make an effort not to attack the person instead of the idea, but, I admit, there are situations where I do just that. I have low tolerance for intolerance (ironically enough), and the kind of ignorance where the facts are ignored for ideology, but I lose my cool when people are hurt by either one. And losing one's cool does not make for a civil exchange.

When I was much younger, I was even more prone to this, but, once when I was torn up on an issue I was passionate about, I found the following quote:

Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than from the arguments of its opposers.
--William Penn

It was telling and true. I knew this. I knew a professional letter explaining my dissatisfaction was much more likely to lead to a resolution I could live with than a rant written when I was still enraged. I also discovered something on that actual issue that was driving me crazy. I could sometimes get my point across by sticking, politely and consistently to my guns. Many of the challenges I faced were them testing me to see if I had a rationale, if it mattered enough for me to defend.

So, I make an effort to think about things before responding, to endeavor to attack the ideology or argument and not the arguer. The good news is that, if I do that with another thinking individual, even if one doesn'tI don't agree with him or her, this is usually much more effective in getting them to appreciate (if not agree with) my side than ranting and raving.

If I am talking to someone immune from rational argument (and there are those supporting nearly every ideology out there), ranting or sarcastic nastiness won't change anything either, but sometimes it's too tempting to forgo. Determined ignorance (i.e. stupidity) can't be countered with facts or logic either, though. I try to avoid those discussions, but I can get sucked in and often am ashamed of my behavior. Arguing circles around someone stupid isn't really an achievement. It's effectively kicking a puppy, has no positive effect on the puppy and demonstrates my own immaturity and impatience.

So, what does that mean for you? Well, I'll have to speculate and you'll have to decide how well it fits into your situation. There are a few explanations I can come up with:

• The blog/website you left the comment on is authored by someone of determined and intractable ignorance. The author is rude and/or deaf to all reason, is so in love with his/her opinion that no amount of reason or ranting will accomplish anything. In such a case you might delete one's comment because it will accomplish nothing or your ranting is so over the top that you might be afraid of being of similar ignorance/rudeness. However, my contact with you in the past argues against that. You don't seem to have any qualm about answering ignorance/rudeness with more of the same, so I don't think this is it.
• Your answer was a gut reaction and came out more nasty than would have been effective. As your temper cooled, you realize that the way you responded (not the meat of the response) was said unnecessarily harshly to convey the meaning. You deleted the comment so that you could explore other ways to convey the same position but with a more reasoned tone (and likely make it a more convincing argument at the same time). This I can buy.
• Your response included some frustration at an author who you might respect. You characterized them with names you know aren't really appropriate, but you are frustrated at the stances and the apparent close-mindedness they show on many issues. Again, because you respect them, you're uncomfortable with the personal denigration when it's really the issue you want to attack. This is another valid possibility, in my opinion, and also doesn't preclude another attempt to state your case when your frustration is less to the fore.
• You don't feel strongly enough on the topic to argue over it. This kind of reaction is particularly applicable to situations where you're dealing with people you know are willing to go toe to toe. Sometimes, what you're fighting for isn't worth the aggravation of dealing with someone, especially if you don't think there's any chance of changing their mind. Another distinct possibility. Picking one's battles is a tried and true strategy for maintaining a relationship, even a strained one.
• It didn't feel right. Sometimes, after you write a response, especially if it's emotional, you may realize it just doesn't feel like the right thing. It might involve some of the reasoning above or something entirely different but, at that moment, the comment is not something you want to be associated with, that it doesn't say what you want or in say what you want in the way you want it said.

I don't think your reaction, whatever caused it, necessarily means you are (or aren't) becoming a better or more considerate person. It could be pure self-interest in wanting to state your case more effectively or saving yourself some hassle. It could, however, mean that you'd rather have a meaningful dialog than outshout an opponent and that is a mature response (especially given that "newspaper" you read on-line :D ). If that thought bothers you, just skim through some of the sensationalist media out there and your interest in having a meaningful dialog will probably be strangled in it's infancy by the righteous disgust at some people.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Venus

Since I'm not really here, I thought I'd take a day of trivia and, in the interest of the Apollo 11 anniversary, I thought I'd give you space trivia.

Since it's my favorite planet, I thought I'd start with Venus, one interesting little gem. Often described as Earth's twin she's slightly smaller and slightly closer to the sun with an atmosphere and continents hidden beneath her dense clouds. She has similar composition and density to the Earth, at 95% of Earth's diameter and 80% of her mass.

But she won't be ready for people to inhabit her any time soon - if ever. The clouds visible aren't water vapor but sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid. Doesn't that sound fun. The pressure is 90 atmospheres, 90X higher than it is at sea level here. And it's hot. Not like Houston's hot, but hot enough, literally, to melt lead: 740K . Venus, though scientists think it once had water, and oxygen and all that good stuff - perhaps even life once - is now one of the least hospitable places in the solar systems. If there ever was life there, I doubt we'll ever know it.

There are active volcanos on Venus, large, flat volcanoes of the hotspot variety (as opposed to techtonic plates) that spew vast amount of lava. But I think one of the coolest things about Venus is the fact that it not only spins backwards (on of only two planets that do) but spins veeeeeeeery slooooooowly. In fact, the Venusian year is 224.7 years, but the Venusian day is 243 days long.

Space is fun.

Read more...

For Sparkle: What's Really Out There?

Sparkle said: So i have a few questions most i dont think you will be able to answer since no one really has an answer which is why they trouble me so much but i just want your opinion on the matters. Sorry if my writing isnt very good im use to texting so not very good punctuation. Anyway i havent had the chance to read books from great minds like Newton or Einstein but i have read up alot of others summaries and comments about them but im fascinated with things like gravity,light, and the size of the universe along with how it works. Hmm how should i start off...

Might as well start out with the best i suppose. What do you think about white holes and about the chance that our universe isnt the only one. I mean how can we know for sure yet or ever know that there arent other universes at there other small condensed matter waiting to become a universe like ours and if so where and what kind of area are those other universes in is their time different than ours? Im sorry i know im asking unanswerable questions but like i said i just want your view on the matter. I will ask more questions based on your response to this one :) [sic]

Well, Sparkle, that's quite the question. Like many of the questions I get, I'll give you a short answer first: I don't know. That's people like me do for questions where the answer is, at best, speculative.

See, there's a great deal out there in the wide wide universe that doesn't fit neatly into the world was we understand it, which is incompletely. Models, particularly when delving into the world of quantum physics, only work part of the time or for part of the range or sometimes give different answers than, sigh, reality under certain circumstances. And there are still disconnects between what quantum particles (really really small things) and regular-sized stuff do that many a scientist has scratched his head over.

That's where theoretical physics come into it. Scientists try to devise explanations for what doesn't fit in with the physics as we know it, but does fit in what we can see. And, in science, reality trumps theory. In other words, if scientists think the world runs a certain way but reality demonstrates that's not true, science has to change because reality won't. These scientists come up with hypotheses to explain reality and then test it against what we can measure. Hypotheses that seem to fit with reality become theories. Hypotheses that fail get tossed during peer review. A single fact can kill a theory.

But these aren't theories like evolution and plate tectonics, which are well grounded, demonstrable and have literally piles of data to support them. Those are theories that give every indication of being fact, with only a few details still being bandied about. No, when we get into theoretical physics, we're getting more into speculative physics where the data is so sparse and limited that the hypotheses and theories that emerge sound like fantasy. Proving any of these theories might be hundreds of years in the future.

Some of the theories involve things like multiverses (as you mentioned), black or white holes, string theory, dark matter, gravitons, tachyons, in fact, many different ideas to explain what otherwise wouldn't be explainable. None can be proven. Many can't be disproven. So far, though, none of them explain everything, just some stuff here and some stuff there.

But there are a few things to remember. The first is that our ability to detect what we need to find the answers might be very limited. 100 years from now, the data we have might be lightyears beyond what we have today.

Secondly, just because these are the only explanations we've thought of doesn't mean that they are the only ones out there. Reality has thrown us a few curve balls.

So I don't know what's out there. But I don't disbelieve anything until proven impossible. Are there white holes and universes you can fit in your pocket? Are there multiverses and wormholes and tachyons flying through us as we speak? Possibly.

If you limit your disbelief to what can be readily disproven, your mind won't be closed to all the wonders that lie before you.

I like to keep an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out.
-- Arthur Sulzberger

Read more...

For Quadmama: Clearing the Bloglist

Quadmama asked: At what point is it OK to delete someone from your blogroll? I have some great cyber friends but some of them haven't updated their sites for 5 or more weeks. Life happens, I get that and I don't want to offend anyone, but don't know how to keep my site current with really old posts on my blogroll. Don't some host sites (ie: Today.com) lock you out if you go 4 weeks without posting?

Howdy, Quadmama. I don't think I can give a pat answer, but let me tell you what I do.

Back when my bloglist didn't conveniently list out the latest post along with when it was posted (in order of most recent), I had to troll through my list daily to make sure I didn't miss anything. It was a real time drag (and I'm a busy mom, like you, but fewer kids to herd). Back then, things that didn't update reasonable and/or blogs that lost my interest, that I really didn't read were culled frequently. My thought was (and is) that, if I felt going and being disappointed was a waste of time (not worth waiting for or taking the time), they probably shouldn't be on my bloglist.

Harsh, but it gave me a chance to figure out which blogs were really worth reading every post. Now, because I've developed relationships or figured out which blogs are worth waiting for - and the newest stuff floats to the top effortlessly, I'm less prone to give up on the out-of-date blogs, though, of course, eventually, they'll probably get pruned. Some I keep, hoping they come back, like Secret of Newton and Oldwestmom. They haven't but I think they're worth waiting for.

What does all that mean for you? Nothing, because what I would do is only imposed on me. You have to decide what you're looking for in the blogs you follow. The right time to drop a blog is the time you begin to think the trip there is wasted.

One suggestion, don't worry about rude. If a blog is left unattended for months at a time, they are unlikely to take offense if you move on. In my opinion, a bloglist is something of an endorsement, a statement that these are blogs worth visiting. If you reach the point where you no longer think that's true about a blog, don't feel bad about letting it go.

Read more...

For Henni: Who Is This Guy?

Henni said: Okay, this might sound a lil stupid. but I have this picture on my computer, its about a male artist who sings slow acoustic rock ballad-y songs (if I remember correctly..lol) and I can't remember who it is!! All I remember is that I really liked his songs, and I desperately want to hear them again. I've tried everything, and no one knows him.. so I was hoping you'd help me!

Henni, I'd love to, but I'm completely stumped. I've never seen this guy before and, without more hints (a song name, time period- though that's unlikely to solve it for me, album), I'm at a complete loss.

However, I do have musical type people who read my blog and they might be able to help where I am clueless, especially if this guy is obscure.

So, she stumped me. Hey, readers, can any of you provide some insight on this fellow?

Read more...

Trivia Break: Ptolemies

I know, I know, I should be answering a question, but I got shanghaied into something at work, so it's another trivia break.

From Wikipedia

You know, when I was in high school world history eleventy-five years ago, I remember being informed that all the Pharoahs were inbred (marrying brother to sister) and that Akhenaton looked like a fruit because of his inbreeding but his wife (who clearly he was fond of since they had love notes carved to each other all over his city) was gorgeous (Nefertiri). What I didn’t really absorb was that this unmitigated inbreeding thing was around for a long time, up to and including Roman times. I might touch on good old Akhenaten for a different Trivia break because, hey, he’s interesting.

I was reading about the Ptolemies and was amazed, that, in addition to the serious brother-sister in-breeding was a complete and utter lack in originality in naming things that wouldn’t be duplicated until the Bourbons all but wore out the name of Louis out. Check this out.

• Ptolemy I Soter (305 BC-282 BC) married first (probably) Thais, secondly Artakama, thirdly Eurydice and finally Berenice I
• Ptolemy II Philadelphus (284 BC-246 BC) married Arsinoe I, then Arsinoe II Philadelphus; ruled jointly with Ptolemy the Son (267 BC-259 BC)
• Ptolemy III Euergetes (246 BC-222 BC) married Berenice II
• Ptolemy IV Philopator (222 BC-204 BC) married Arsinoe III
• Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204 BC-180 BC) married Cleopatra I
• Ptolemy VI Philometor (180 BC-164 BC, 163 BC-145 BC) married Cleopatra II, briefly ruled jointly with Ptolemy Eupator in 152 BC
• Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator (never reigned)
• Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (Physcon) (170 BC-163 BC, 145 BC-116 BC) married Cleopatra II then Cleopatra III; temporarily expelled from Alexandria by Cleopatra II between 131 BC and 127 BC, reconciled with her in 124 BC.
• Cleopatra II Philometora Soteira (131 BC-127 BC), in opposition to Ptolemy VIII
• Cleopatra III Philometor Soteira Dikaiosyne Nikephoros (Kokke) (116 BC-101 BC) ruled jointly with Ptolemy IX (116 BC-107 BC) and Ptolemy X (107 BC-101 BC)
• Ptolemy IX Soter II (Lathyros) (116 BC-107 BC, 88 BC-81 BC as Soter II) married Cleopatra IV then Cleopatra Selene; ruled jointly with Cleopatra III in his first reign
• Ptolemy X Alexander I (107 BC-88 BC) married Cleopatra Selene then Berenice III; ruled jointly with Cleopatra III till 101 BC
• Berenice III Philopator (81 BC-80 BC)
• Ptolemy XI Alexander II (80 BC) married and ruled jointly with Berenice III before murdering her; ruled alone for 19 days after that.
• Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos (Auletes) (80 BC-58 BC, 55 BC-51 BC) married Cleopatra V Tryphaena
• Cleopatra V Tryphaena (58 BC-57 BC) ruled jointly with Berenice IV Epiphaneia (58 BC-55 BC)
• Cleopatra VII Philopator (51 BC-30 BC) ruled jointly with Ptolemy XIII (51 BC-47 BC), Ptolemy XIV (47 BC-44 BC) and Ptolemy XV Caesarion (44 BC-30 BC).
• Arsinoe IV (48 BC-47 BC) in opposition to Cleopatra VII

Incest? Oh, we got incest. Ptolemies II, IV, VI VII didn’t live long enough to get married), VIII (who married both his sister and her daughter), IX (who managed to marry two DIFFERENT sisters), Ptolemy X (who married one of his sisters – also married to IX – and HER daughter), XI (who married half-sister/cousin, murdered her and then lost his throne as a result), XII (I can’t even classify this relationship – check the chart – asuming XII is not illegitimate with a different mother), XIII and XIV (who both married their sister – or half-sister – Cleopatra VII and she managed to marry to Romans as well). The Ptolemies were all descended from one of Alexander the Great’s bodyguard/general Ptolemy Sotor (generally via both sides of the line) who ended up with governorship of Egypt and managed to worm his way in with the populace as the successor as the previous native Pharoahs. No small feat. It probably didn’t hurt that the dynasty banked on Alexander’s glory for pretty much as long as they ruled.

Aside from the serious need for a baby name book, I also noted how many female rulers and corulers there were. The Cleopatra we’ve heard the most about (due to her rather intensive involvement with Rome) was not a fluke ruler. Cleopatra II threw her (second) husband out when he married her daughter from her first marriage (both marriages to full brothes) and coruled with her children until eventually reconciling with husband #2. Cleopatra III ruled with several sons and her granddaughter ruled by herself after her first husband (her uncle) died until she was forced to marry her half-brother. Who murdered her. Cleopatra V actually co-ruled with Berenice IV (her daughter?) before the fiascos of Cleopatra VII and her multiplicity of spouses.

Sometimes, reading history can give you a brand new appreciation even for today’s politics.

Freaky.

Read more...

For Aron: Eschewing Love

Aron said:

While developing my moral system, I used these passages to support why I won't date, marry or have pre-marital sex:

Matthew 19:10-12
...his disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

1 Cor 7:6-9
...This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Cor 7:24-35
...In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife... Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.

1 Cor 7:38-40
...So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is.

Is my conclusion logical? Is is better not to date and only focus on my mission in life which I feel is my calling?

No one, Aron, can make that decision for you. I, personally, would be leery about making such an important decision based on a few hand-picked passages of any book, but it's not about me. I don't think the passage matter as much so much as your reaction to them. And it's not about me. I can't tell you that your reaction is wrong for you.

Those passages may speak to you because that's what's best for you or because you feel it might be best for you. I honestly don't know.

I know you're awfully young and, when you're young, it's easy to see the world as black and white, all or nothing. I know from experience that what you often expect for yourself and what you actually get are often far different. I've also discovered that love can be hard to gainsay and it comes in the most inopportune times.

But, those are my experiences. Perhaps that's just not the path for you. I don't know, Aron. You have a great deal of life to go.

If I were to give you advice - and you've asked me too - I'd say to follow where your heart leads. If it leads only to work, that is undoubtedly the right path. If it leads elsewhere, I suggest following.

One more piece of advice. There's no harm in making a plan, for your immediate and long term future, but don't hate yourself if the path diverges and don't close any doors unnecessarily. You never know when an unexpected detour leads to fulfillment.

Read more...

For Aron: The Stigma of Unusual Religion

Aron asked: By definition, I am an Eclectic Spiritual, I use a combination of Christianity and Buddhism and other things as my religion. But, I have found the Eclectic Spiritualism has a strong association with Paganism. Would calling myself an Eclectic Spiritual give me a bad reputation.

This is not a topic I'm particularly objective about, largely because you could define me as an Eclectic Spiritual myself.

There's a quote I have by Dr. Seuss: "Be who you are, say what you think, people that matter don't care, and people that care don't matter."

That pretty much sums up how I've always felt about it. I don't go about telling people my religion as a general rule, but I don't have a problem acknowledging it because I don't particularly care about being popular. I'm only interested in real friends, not anyone who'd hang around with me because I was (or wasn't) a particularly label. If someone can't accept who I really am (and that can certainly include what I believe), they likely aren't the friend for me. I'm actually pretty impressed. There's a lot more openmindedness and tolerance out there for people who think and believe in an out of the ordinary way than you might think given the nonsense on the news. My beliefs have never cost me a friendship I missed.

But there's the opposite side of the coin as well - remembering that the label doesn't make the person and not judging people by what they believe. I like to decide how I feel about people by getting to know them. If you do the same, you can be assured that the friendship you make mean something and will be more treasured than gold.

Another option you have is, of course, keeping your beliefs to yourself. Not everyone is comfortable speaking of their personal beliefs or being in a position to defend them. I don't see why anyone doesn't have the option to keep his beliefs private, so that's another path to take.

Despite my odd ways of looking at religion, I don't think I ever missed any opportunities because of them, if that's what you're worried about. It's a slow and painful process, but I have hopes that the world is growing up.

Read more...

For Aron: What Does It Mean?

For Aron: Someone claimed that the Tower of Babel proved that god did not want humanity to conduct macro-Engineering projects. Does this story mean this?

I have no idea. In order for me to know with certainty the real lesson intended in the story, I'd have to crawl into the head of the author, know his motivations, culture, background. Or, presuming it were inspired directly by God, I would have to also crawl into God's head. Both tasks are beyond me.

But even if I knew the original intent, I can't see how that would make a particular interpretation right or wrong.

For me, I always thought the intent was that there was no road directly to Heaven, that you can't obtain Godhood by building a pathway. I can see the interpretation you've mentioned and half a dozen others.

Do I think God has an issue with macro-Engineering projects? No, not of it they're done in an environmentally friendly. But that's my own opinion.

Actually, though I hadn't given this story much thought, my first reaction is this story is in response to some of the pyramid building, wherein a King would plan a path to an afterlife. More than one of those attempts failed abysmally and I could see this story falling out of that failure.

In the end, it shouldn't be about what anyone else thinks God means - just what you think.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Bloomingdale Insane Asylum

Once in a while I like to take a break from questions and give you a little bit of trivia that might not be generally known. Mostly, it's likely to be the result of stumbling across the bit of trivia myself, often by random strolling through Wikipedia. Today's is no exception and I was snagged by it because it reminded me of one of my favorite question-askers, Aron (who, I think I remember, is going to be starting at Columbia University soon- if I misremembered the university, please forgive me, Aron. I have a mental weakness with names).

So, what did I learn today? Apparently, Columbia University was built on grounds that used to encompass an insane asylum for the rich and famous: Bloomingdale Insane Asylum. The photo there is the only building remaining from the original facility: Buell Hall.

I have to admit, it doesn't seem a stretch to go from insane asylum to bastion of higher education, but I'm a little off kilter myself.

Bloomingdale Insane Asylum had nothing to do with the Bloomingdale of department store fame. That portion of Manhattan used to be called Bloomingdale and that stretch of Broadway was called Bloomingdale Lane. Nor did it start out as an asylum for the elite. Originally built by the New York Hospital, it was one of the first asylums in the nation when it opened in 1821 - back when asylums were a wee bit more brutal than similar institutes today (as, indeed, were hospitals, though perhaps not to the same degree).

When the New York City Lunatic Asylum opened on Blackwell's Island (where Nelly Bly managed her expose on conditions), the indigent insane were sent there, leaving Bloomingdale Asylum for the more well-to-do mental patients. Eventually, of course, urban development made these large tracts of land very attractive to potential institutions and much of the land was purchased for the Columbia College.

So, now, wasn't that fun?

Read more...

For Aron: Is It Hopeless?

Aron said: A while ago, I applied for the NASA-MUST scholarship. In addition to money for college, NASA gave the winners an internship. I didn't get in the program, does this mean that I do not have a shot to intern with NASA? I would love to intern and work at NASA someday.

Um, no. Things are pretty tight at the moment at NASA and, truthfully, there's a lot of competition. However, I don't think this is the only way in.

There are a number of ways to get in early: internships come up frequently through NASA proper, but it's not the only option. You can also check with specific centers for center specific internships (Here's one for Glenn). Also some contractors also provide internships (United Space Alliance, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing are probably the big contractors, but there are a number of smaller companies like Hamilton Sundstrand).

Something else you could pursue include internships with some of the commercial developers like Bigelow Aerospace (who is working on an inflatable space hotel).

I wouldn't give up too soon.

Read more...

For Aron: Cut the Leash?

Aron asked: I have a twitter account. I use a tool to automatically follow people who follow me, but now I can't read their tweets but cause there are so many, should I turn off auto-follow?

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: Follow people who say things that interest you, intrigue you. Everyone gets inundated with enough nonsense during the day and, if you're swamped with, such useful items as "Going to the bathroom," and "Tw8ty is feeling steamed because her boyfriend's late," you're going to miss the things that really interest you.

Just follow those you can't bear to miss.

Hey, they can't all be long answers.

Read more...

For Flit: What Was Your Answer?

Flit asked: What sort of system did YOU design ...and did he recognize your brilliance and give you a decent mark for it?
OK, I was hoping someone would ask me. :)

So, we come in with our projects. Now, this was an upper level class and had a prerequisite (which no one told me about) so it was my first design project. It was not the first one for the other students.

The project which I described yesterday was a "personal fire escape device" for high rise buildings (~10 floors), with a 300 pound limit, a minimum and maximum speed, cost per unit, etc. It was pretty clear, although not said out loud, that the teacher was looking for a braking system for a cable/harness system. Ostensibly this was in response to tragedies like the MGM Grand Hotel fire and to reduce insurance liability. In case of fire, the hotel guest would strap on diaper attached to a cable in a black box and leap from the window, confident that the device would save him.

I went into the reasons why the proposal as written didn't work for me on yesterday's post. Feel free to check it out. So, if I didn't like the proposal, what did I do instead?

Well, I completely scrapped the "personal" fire escape device. I couldn't see a way for it to be flexible enough to work for families, be inaccessible for nonemergencies but reliably available for emergencies and be maintainable. So, if I, the scaredy cat, wouldn't want to jump out the window tied to a harness, I thought, what would work for me?

So, I came up with a notion of a rotating net on each side of the building, which one could reach out,grab, and ride right down. Hooks could be provided to help you stay on. You could move out of the way if there was fire directly beneath you. It was not inherently limited to weight. It was easily maintained (four winches on the roof with a backup generator in case power was discontinued), and the net, nominally rolled around it's rotor was only released in case of emergency. It addressed most of the issues I had with the original premise. As an added bonus, a fireman could actually ride the net up and over (or the net could be reversed if necessary) to help rescue people who are trapped or too afraid to come down. See my quick sketch from memory.

The winches were sized appropriately. The net was made of Kevlar (fire resistant) with a wire core to help it hold it's shape if it were exposed to direct flame.

The response to my idea was not what I expected. "That isn't what we asked for." The teacher was confused. The other students were confused. No one had any idea why I chose something different.

"I know," I said, "the other idea wouldn't work and here's why." (I had sketches demonstrating the problems). When I questioned those that provided solutions where they hadn't accounted for the issues, I got a lot of perplexed looks. No one had thought of them. No one understood why I was asking those questions (although those questions - gasp! - get asked in the real world).

Now, I mentioned that say 36/40 students did the cable/braking design, but there were a few that did something a little different. I remember three of them.

One involved jumping into "some sort of panty-hose" like material that would slow one down. The person who proposed it had no understanding that the forces required to slow a person don't just disappear - it's friction and that creates heat. Falling ten stories, it creates a lot of heat. Also, how do you size it? If you get a fat person, you can plug the whole thing up (he had them on every corner of the building as opposed to each room so multiple people would use them). Someone too skinny could slam into the ground (or someone below them). Nor could I think of any pantyhose-like material that could withstand fire or heat. The designer couldn't either.

Another involved a winch in every room that would allow escapees to walk backwards down the side of a building at 4 mph (because Boy Scouts can walk 4 mph), a building covered with windows. Asking if that wasn't a bit challenging got me a blank look and the designer had given no thought to the maintenance (or cost) of a winch in every room.

But I have to give top laurels to the parachute material design though. One individual (who deserves credit for originality) proposed tubes made of parachute material pleated into a tube kept in the ceiling that would shoot out the window at 45 degrees so that people could slide down. There would be a trickle of water to help with friction, but we were missing a method for entering said tube. But more than that, again the physics weren't fully thought out. What happens if the tube gets water (or a person) but the end isn't weighed down? So much for the 45 degree angle. A little water and the tube will end up flat against the building unless you weight the ends. Why not weight the ends? Imagine if you will, tubes shooting out of the building in every direction, heavily weighted.

So, now you know. I got a C, but I think I surprised everyone. Also, I was apparently missing pieces of the project I didn't know about. If it makes you feel better, I ended up with an A in the class and the respect of the professor. And I learned a valuable lesson that I have seen played out a hundred times.

Now I play to my strong suit and professionally ask the hard questions so that our designs end up better than they might have otherwise. So, it's all good.

Read more...