NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer - VMS

This is a discussion on NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer - VMS ; Bob Koehler wrote: > In article , "Dr. > Dweeb" writes: >> >> >> Bob Koehler wrote: >>> >>> Not quite. The current voting laws give more power to the parties >>> and only the less central candidates tend to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64

Thread: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

  1. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > In article <474edfa4$0$7611$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, "Dr.
    > Dweeb" writes:
    >>
    >>
    >> Bob Koehler wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Not quite. The current voting laws give more power to the parties
    >>> and only the less central candidates tend to survive, polarizing
    >>> the elected.

    >>
    >> Then join the party if you do not like the candidates. Exert
    >> influence. Compainining about the "power" of the parties (general
    >> eveywhere, not just US) is hardly likely to cause change.

    >
    > Why should I join a party I don't like? I agree with Washington
    > (George), political parties are not the best way to govern.
    >
    > Besides, I already have and use the right to vote against the
    > extreemist candidates that they nominate. I will vote for a
    > candidate who supports my ideas and against one who doesn't,
    > including changes that would bring back more "centeralized"
    > candidates.


    Good.

    IIRC that puts you in the minority. Perhaps more people need to be motivated
    to exercise that right when the opportunity is afforded them!

    Dweeb



  2. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Nov 28, 4:31 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <303adb89-0e85-457b-861e-9ce261885...@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
    >> Neil Rieck writes:
    >>

    > {...snip...}
    >>
    >> I am not against the stem-cell research. proNJ has most of the major
    >> pharmaceutical research in the states, so why must the state fund
    >> that
    >> which, until now, has run fine as commercial enterprise? I may have
    >> been happy to see the referendum succeed if the proNJ's fiscal house
    >> wasn't in such a shambles but expending $.5Billion, when the state is
    >> already so deep into the hole that it may ever crawl out, without ANY
    >> guarantee that the research would pay off is wrong. The state's con-
    >> stitution (not that any constitutional rights exist in the USA) says
    >> that the government can't gamble with tax dollars.
    >>

    >
    > Your public/private points reminded me that HHMI (Howard Hughes
    > Medical Institute) is allowed to work in these areas because they
    > receive no public funding in these areas. My only comment on this is
    > that some projects might be too big to be done alone (like going to
    > the Moon in 1970). I hope that privately funded organizations are
    > cooperating in order to avoid dupicated work.
    >
    > NSR


    Firstly, it's a long time since I had a W2, so I have no vested interest in
    this question ...

    Can someone give me one, clear, unequivocal reason why manned space flight
    out of earth's orbit in any way justifies its cost relative to unmanned
    missions (which are massively less expensive) to other solar system bodies?

    Star Trek is TV, not reality.

    I simply do not see the benefit, other than political prestige.


    Dweeb



  3. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article <474fa7bd$0$7608$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. Dweeb" writes:
    >Neil Rieck wrote:
    >> On Nov 28, 4:31 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >>> In article
    >>> <303adb89-0e85-457b-861e-9ce261885...@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
    >>> Neil Rieck writes:
    >>>

    >> {...snip...}
    >>>

    ..
    .. snip
    ..
    >
    >Firstly, it's a long time since I had a W2, so I have no vested interest in
    >this question ...
    >
    >Can someone give me one, clear, unequivocal reason why manned space flight
    >out of earth's orbit in any way justifies its cost relative to unmanned
    >missions (which are massively less expensive) to other solar system bodies?
    >


    Human beings are more flexible - both physically and mentally.
    The latter becomes even more important on more remote missions eg to Mars where
    the speed of light means human beings on earth have no direct near realtime
    control of machines on the Martian surface but have to rely on uploading
    commands and then waiting and hoping that everything then goes OK. Of course
    these requirements drive developments aimed at improving the abilities of such
    machines to cope on their own but we are nowhere near having what would really
    be required ie Human Level AI systems.

    Note. It isn't a choice between manned missions and unmanned missions both have
    their place.

    Another reason for manned missions is to prepare for eventual human
    colonisation of the solar system. You may dismiss this as Star Trek fantasy but
    why should humanity deny itself the resources of a whole Solar system ?


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University



    >Star Trek is TV, not reality.
    >
    >I simply do not see the benefit, other than political prestige.
    >
    >
    >Dweeb
    >
    >


  4. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article <2e0f3$474fc65d$cef8887a$6850@teksavvy.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > Dr. Dweeb wrote:
    >> Can someone give me one, clear, unequivocal reason why manned space flight
    >> out of earth's orbit in any way justifies its cost relative to unmanned
    >> missions (which are massively less expensive) to other solar system bodies?

    >
    >
    > When Christopher Columbus set out, he was hoping to find a way to india
    > by going west. He didn't find what he was looking for. But he found
    > something totally unexpected.


    Hardly. Christopher Columbus was much closer to NASA than most people
    give him credit for. He knew there was no direct westerly path to India.
    He conned Spain into financing a junket that could not possibly accomplish
    what he told them it would. Either that, or he was truly the biggest
    idiot the world has ever seen.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  5. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer


    "Neil Rieck" wrote in message
    news:db8f15bc-0e60-4c48-b4ef-61550938a74f@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

    > Also, the moon offers so other interesting possibilities. For example,
    > apparently China has an eye on the moon's supply of Helium-3.


    I blame Ben Bova for this meme. As a sceptical colleague once
    remarked: "why go to all the trouble of extracting fusion fuel from
    seawater, when it's just lying around on the moon?"



  6. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:

    > Human beings are more flexible - both physically and mentally. The
    > latter becomes even more important on more remote missions eg to Mars
    > where the speed of light means human beings on earth have no direct
    > near realtime control of machines on the Martian surface but have to
    > rely on uploading commands and then waiting and hoping that everything
    > then goes OK. Of course these requirements drive developments aimed at
    > improving the abilities of such machines to cope on their own but we
    > are nowhere near having what would really be required ie Human Level
    > AI systems.


    Voyager. After a few decades still operational and has to cope with the
    long signal delay. They even reprogrammed the whole system for the (I
    think) Saturn fly-by.

    > Another reason for manned missions is to prepare for eventual human
    > colonisation of the solar system. You may dismiss this as Star Trek
    > fantasy but why should humanity deny itself the resources of a whole
    > Solar system ?


    Without letting the thread drift too much off-topic, one has to search
    for environments which can support a self-sustained colony. Mars would
    be climatically and environmentally the first candidate, but we have a
    very large obstacle there: how to land humans safely. Aerobraking
    maneuvers and parachutes are ineffective due to a very thin atmosphere,
    lander systems like the moon landing module with rocket-powered
    deceleration suffer from a freight penalty (you have to get the mass to
    Mars) and slow descents would take a few months.

    And the largest problem of all: water. If it's one thing that is
    absolutely crucial, it's water or easy access to a source of it.

    I suggest a follow-up into the astronomy or engineering groups :-)


    Sebastian

  7. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article , Sebastian Hanigk writes:
    >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >
    >> Human beings are more flexible - both physically and mentally. The
    >> latter becomes even more important on more remote missions eg to Mars
    >> where the speed of light means human beings on earth have no direct
    >> near realtime control of machines on the Martian surface but have to
    >> rely on uploading commands and then waiting and hoping that everything
    >> then goes OK. Of course these requirements drive developments aimed at
    >> improving the abilities of such machines to cope on their own but we
    >> are nowhere near having what would really be required ie Human Level
    >> AI systems.

    >
    >Voyager. After a few decades still operational and has to cope with the
    >long signal delay.


    Voyager is hardly doing much in the way of fast manoevering - If something were
    about to hit it the controllers would need a lot of notice if they wanted to
    move out of it's way.

    >They even reprogrammed the whole system for the (I
    >think) Saturn fly-by.
    >


    You are talking about making changes on a leisurely voyage that is something
    which can be controlled even with the large lags. It's dealing with the
    unexpected which becomes a problem.
    (I think that there have also been a few losses when they have uploaded the
    wrong commands to other spacecraft).


    >> Another reason for manned missions is to prepare for eventual human
    >> colonisation of the solar system. You may dismiss this as Star Trek
    >> fantasy but why should humanity deny itself the resources of a whole
    >> Solar system ?

    >
    >Without letting the thread drift too much off-topic, one has to search
    >for environments which can support a self-sustained colony. Mars would
    >be climatically and environmentally the first candidate, but we have a
    >very large obstacle there: how to land humans safely. Aerobraking
    >maneuvers and parachutes are ineffective due to a very thin atmosphere,
    >lander systems like the moon landing module with rocket-powered
    >deceleration suffer from a freight penalty (you have to get the mass to
    >Mars) and slow descents would take a few months.
    >


    I'm pretty sure the Mars Direct Mission proposal involved a combination of
    Aerobraking to slow down into Mars orbit followed by a descent utilising
    parachutes and rockets. I don't think that posed any serious problems.

    However after the first landing you would be able to just manufacture
    fuel from the martian atmosphere (you require some hydrogen to either be
    shipped to Mars as in the mars direct Plan - or extracted from local water).
    Then if necessary you can blast it into orbit for later arriving ships to
    refuel with before landing.


    >And the largest problem of all: water. If it's one thing that is
    >absolutely crucial, it's water or easy access to a source of it.
    >


    Which recent observations suggest exist in reasonable quantities on Mars.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >I suggest a follow-up into the astronomy or engineering groups :-)
    >
    >
    >Sebastian


  8. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:

    > Voyager is hardly doing much in the way of fast manoevering - If
    > something were about to hit it the controllers would need a lot of
    > notice if they wanted to move out of it's way.


    Correct. I simply took Voyager as an example of a remote controlled
    spacecraft.

    On the other hand, larger bodies which could pose a threat would be
    comets, their orbits can be predicted and they do not simply pop up;
    against smaller bodies like micrometeorites, shielding should suffice.

    >>They even reprogrammed the whole system for the (I
    >>think) Saturn fly-by.
    >>

    >
    > You are talking about making changes on a leisurely voyage that is something
    > which can be controlled even with the large lags. It's dealing with the
    > unexpected which becomes a problem.


    See above. On a Earth-Mars or Moon-Mars voyage, navigational
    unpredictabilities which could be solved on-board wouldn't be existent;
    the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter would be much more interesting.

    > (I think that there have also been a few losses when they have uploaded the
    > wrong commands to other spacecraft).


    I would have to read up on that, in software engineering, we mostly
    talked about the prominent mishaps like the lost Mars mission.

    > I'm pretty sure the Mars Direct Mission proposal involved a combination of
    > Aerobraking to slow down into Mars orbit followed by a descent utilising
    > parachutes and rockets. I don't think that posed any serious problems.


    The problem with Mars - if I recall correctly - is it's combination of
    larger gravity and very thin atmosphere. Parachutes for larger vehicles
    than the rover delivery systems were deemed unfeasible while the
    necessery propulsion mass (rocket fuel) for a controlled and gentle
    landing maneuver would be too much.

    I have to concede that I'm argumenting here from the top of my head; the
    papers and articles my reasoning is built upon were from a few months
    ago ... If you have some references I would be glad to read them!

    > However after the first landing you would be able to just manufacture
    > fuel from the martian atmosphere (you require some hydrogen to either be
    > shipped to Mars as in the mars direct Plan - or extracted from local water).
    > Then if necessary you can blast it into orbit for later arriving ships to
    > refuel with before landing.


    Interesting plan. Perhaps coupled with a Mars orbiting space station you
    could have some kind of lightweight transport shuttle service from the Moon to
    Mars and a set of reusable landing craft for the Mars descent.

    >>And the largest problem of all: water. If it's one thing that is
    >>absolutely crucial, it's water or easy access to a source of it.

    >
    > Which recent observations suggest exist in reasonable quantities on Mars.


    Yes, that's why I think that if a colonisation were to start, Mars would
    be our best bet. I'm really envious of my parents' generation because
    they had the Apollo program ...


    Sebastian

  9. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    Sebastian Hanigk wrote:
    > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >
    >
    >>Voyager is hardly doing much in the way of fast manoevering - If
    >>something were about to hit it the controllers would need a lot of
    >>notice if they wanted to move out of it's way.

    >
    >
    > Correct. I simply took Voyager as an example of a remote controlled
    > spacecraft.
    >
    > On the other hand, larger bodies which could pose a threat would be
    > comets, their orbits can be predicted and they do not simply pop up;
    > against smaller bodies like micrometeorites, shielding should suffice.
    >
    >
    >>>They even reprogrammed the whole system for the (I
    >>>think) Saturn fly-by.
    >>>

    >>
    >>You are talking about making changes on a leisurely voyage that is something
    >>which can be controlled even with the large lags. It's dealing with the
    >>unexpected which becomes a problem.

    >
    >
    > See above. On a Earth-Mars or Moon-Mars voyage, navigational
    > unpredictabilities which could be solved on-board wouldn't be existent;
    > the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter would be much more interesting.
    >
    >
    >>(I think that there have also been a few losses when they have uploaded the
    >>wrong commands to other spacecraft).

    >
    >
    > I would have to read up on that, in software engineering, we mostly
    > talked about the prominent mishaps like the lost Mars mission.
    >
    >
    >>I'm pretty sure the Mars Direct Mission proposal involved a combination of
    >>Aerobraking to slow down into Mars orbit followed by a descent utilising
    >>parachutes and rockets. I don't think that posed any serious problems.

    >
    >
    > The problem with Mars - if I recall correctly - is it's combination of
    > larger gravity and very thin atmosphere. Parachutes for larger vehicles
    > than the rover delivery systems were deemed unfeasible while the
    > necessery propulsion mass (rocket fuel) for a controlled and gentle
    > landing maneuver would be too much.
    >
    > I have to concede that I'm argumenting here from the top of my head; the
    > papers and articles my reasoning is built upon were from a few months
    > ago ... If you have some references I would be glad to read them!
    >
    >
    >>However after the first landing you would be able to just manufacture
    >>fuel from the martian atmosphere (you require some hydrogen to either be
    >>shipped to Mars as in the mars direct Plan - or extracted from local water).
    >>Then if necessary you can blast it into orbit for later arriving ships to
    >>refuel with before landing.

    >
    >
    > Interesting plan. Perhaps coupled with a Mars orbiting space station you
    > could have some kind of lightweight transport shuttle service from the Moon to
    > Mars and a set of reusable landing craft for the Mars descent.
    >


    Note that Mars has two small moons. Either one could act as a
    "substrate" for some sort of orbital habitat. That might help cut
    shipping and construction costs.


  10. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    on 3-12-2007 19:24 david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote...
    [snip]

    > Though there are arguments for the Industry being space-based
    > and just being supplied with raw materials mined from the moon and transported
    > into orbit using a mass-driver.


    Sorry, this lurker just couldn't resist: if this mass-driver were
    connected to a MASSBUS we would be on-topic again!

    --
    Wilm Boerhout Zwolle, NL
    remove OLD PAINT from return address to reply

  11. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    Wilm Boerhout wrote:
    > on 3-12-2007 19:24 david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote...
    > [snip]
    >
    >> Though there are arguments for the Industry being space-based
    >> and just being supplied with raw materials mined from the moon and
    >> transported
    >> into orbit using a mass-driver.

    >
    >
    > Sorry, this lurker just couldn't resist: if this mass-driver were
    > connected to a MASSBUS we would be on-topic again!
    >


    Shall we resurect the "MASSBUS Mouse"? :-) (This bit of lunacy first
    appeared on CompuServe's VAX Forum.)


  12. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > Given the low gravity and hence low escape velocity of the moon this oxygen
    > could form a valuable resource to enable spacecraft refueling in cis-lunar
    > orbit cutting down on launch weight from Earth.


    In order to reach the moon from the earth, you need to achieve escape
    velocity (or nearly achieve it) which represents the vast majority of
    the fuel you need to get to mars anyways.

    So your mars ship will spend tons of fuel to get to moon, then spend
    fuel to slow down insert into lunar orbut orbit, wait to be refueled so
    it can again accelerate out of the moon's orbit to get to mars,

    Now, if you could manufacture the ship on the moon and launch the parts
    into lunar orbit for assembly, then you would have huge fuel savings
    because the only cargo from earth to moon would be the crews.

    One needs to do the math on whether using the moon as a gas station on
    the way to mars makes sense or not. If you need to have fuel for both
    outbond and return trips, it may make sense to detour via the moon where
    you would load the fuel for the return trip and then top off the
    outbound fuel to compensate for the waste of detouring to the moon. But
    wether building all the facilities on the moon to do that makes sense
    compared to just launching more fuel from earth with existing cargo
    launchers is something accountants have to look into.

  13. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article , JF Mezei writes:
    >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >> Given the low gravity and hence low escape velocity of the moon this oxygen
    >> could form a valuable resource to enable spacecraft refueling in cis-lunar
    >> orbit cutting down on launch weight from Earth.

    >
    >In order to reach the moon from the earth, you need to achieve escape
    >velocity (or nearly achieve it) which represents the vast majority of
    >the fuel you need to get to mars anyways.
    >
    >So your mars ship will spend tons of fuel to get to moon, then spend
    >fuel to slow down insert into lunar orbut orbit, wait to be refueled so
    >it can again accelerate out of the moon's orbit to get to mars,
    >

    No you send the fuel from the moon to earth orbit - no need for any ship
    wanting to refuel to go anywhere near moon orbit.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

    >Now, if you could manufacture the ship on the moon and launch the parts
    >into lunar orbit for assembly, then you would have huge fuel savings
    >because the only cargo from earth to moon would be the crews.
    >
    >One needs to do the math on whether using the moon as a gas station on
    >the way to mars makes sense or not. If you need to have fuel for both
    >outbond and return trips, it may make sense to detour via the moon where
    >you would load the fuel for the return trip and then top off the
    >outbound fuel to compensate for the waste of detouring to the moon. But
    >wether building all the facilities on the moon to do that makes sense
    >compared to just launching more fuel from earth with existing cargo
    >launchers is something accountants have to look into.






  14. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article <474fa7bd$0$7608$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. Dweeb" writes:
    >
    > Can someone give me one, clear, unequivocal reason why manned space flight
    > out of earth's orbit in any way justifies its cost relative to unmanned
    > missions (which are massively less expensive) to other solar system bodies?


    This clearly depends on what kind of benefit you're looking for, or
    willing to accept.

    As a scientist I do not like the corresponding reduction in NASA
    science programs that came with the change of direction. As an
    engineer I am excited about the challenges. As a human being I don't
    want to be fenced in, and am excited about further exploration.

    As a practical matter there are things a human being can do that a
    machine can't. And there are things a machine can do that a human
    can't. We need some of both.

    I was happy to see human's first step on the moon. I, too, never
    thought I'd live to see the last.


  15. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article , Sebastian Hanigk writes:
    >
    > The problem with Mars - if I recall correctly - is it's combination of
    > larger gravity and very thin atmosphere. Parachutes for larger vehicles
    > than the rover delivery systems were deemed unfeasible while the
    > necessery propulsion mass (rocket fuel) for a controlled and gentle
    > landing maneuver would be too much.


    You recall incorrectly. Mars is smaller than, and has less gravity
    than, Earth.


  16. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article <475427FC.7090705@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >
    > What benefit would follow from putting more men on the moon?


    Directly? Yes, there is real value in H3. Indirectly? To begin
    the job we'd only just scratched.


  17. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article <475453a5$0$13746$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl>, Wilm Boerhout writes:
    >
    > Sorry, this lurker just couldn't resist: if this mass-driver were
    > connected to a MASSBUS we would be on-topic again!


    Orion might actually be big enough to house a VAX-11 series with
    a MASSBUS. Of course, I'd prefer my trusty Alpha.


  18. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > Other than making airplane style landings what do you think the
    > Space Shuttle can do that Constellation can't?



    It can bring huge cargo wich humans than then install with the canadian
    made manipulator arm (which celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2007).

    It can bring BACK large items to earth for analysis and safe disposal.

    Consider the failed CMG on the station (fancy flywheels used to
    change/keep the station's orientation). They were able to bring it back
    to earth on teh shuttle to analyse why it failed. That is a capability
    that will not be possible with constellation.

    When studying Mir, the USA realised that one of the biggest problems
    were the smaller hatches as well as inability to return equipment that
    was no longer needed which ended up cluttering the station.

    To this end, the USA segment of the space station was designed with the
    large CBM hatches, and the MPLM "containers" that allow full racks of
    equipment and large items to be flown up by shuttle, berthed with the
    arm to the station's large hatches and then have the contents moved. The
    excess equipment can then be moved inside the MPLM which is then
    returned to earth and reused.

    CEV will have the abillity to dock the apollo capssule to the small
    station hatches. Exchange crews and a very minimal amount of cargo.

    CEV will have cargo launcher capability of development continues. But I
    have not heard yet of hard plans for NASA to develop or purchase the
    guidance systems needed for a cargo vehicle to approach the station and
    either dock automatically, or station keep near enough the station to be
    grabbed by the station's arm.

    It is one thing to be able to launch large satellites (something
    humankind already does routinely) but another to be able to bring stuff
    to an orbiting facility and dock/berth to it without damaging it.

    Sure, it *can* be done, the russians have been doing it with their
    progress vehicles for over a decade. The european ATV should be able to
    do it next year (but it docks to the small russian ports). The question
    is whether the US government will have the stamina to continue
    development of that project after the first weekend camping trip to the
    moon was done (or even just cancel the whole kit and caboodle after the
    first cost overruns/delays.)

  19. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:

    >> The problem with Mars - if I recall correctly - is it's combination of
    >> larger gravity and very thin atmosphere. Parachutes for larger vehicles
    >> than the rover delivery systems were deemed unfeasible while the
    >> necessery propulsion mass (rocket fuel) for a controlled and gentle
    >> landing maneuver would be too much.

    >
    > You recall incorrectly. Mars is smaller than, and has less gravity
    > than, Earth.


    Sorry, my initial sentence was phrased rather misleading. What I meant
    by "larger gravity and very thin atmosphere" was that Mars has
    unfortunately a gravity potential larger than the Moon (which means more
    deceleration effort for a safe landing would be needed) while its
    atmosphere is not thick enough to use aerodynamical manoeuvring
    techniques like parachutes.


    Sebastian

  20. Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer

    In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >
    > That's the whole point. Currently we have to provide everything from Earth
    > against that huge gravity well. Mining on the moon means that materials can be
    > sent into Earth orbit from the moon cheaply. Yes you first need to get mining
    > equipment up there so there is an initial startup cost but after that you are
    > living of the land. I suppose whether it is worth it depends upon whether you
    > think humanity should just hunker down on Earth and ignore the rest of the
    > Universe or whether we should be building things in Earth orbit and beyond.


    I think there will be easier ways to get to Mars than setting up a
    complete vertical operation to mine the raw materials, build, test,
    and launch a moon to Mars vehicle on the moon any time in the next
    50 to 100 years.

    I think Henry Ford was one of the few people ever to set up a
    complete vertical operation. He started from raw materials and built
    Model Ts. Absolutely hughe operation, and couldn't compete.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast