Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

Honestly, I'm not sure which label is put on it really matters. 

 

What matters is that divisive, tribal, individualistic ideology that results in ever increasing inequality between both individuals and groups will fvck us all. 

 

That is a practically an inevitability, in one of a hundred different ways. 

[Dahnsouff]

It is more a case of one recognising the value of broader government, and the other not. Such tolerance of a larger safety net may well save lives when the time it is required arrives.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

It is more a case of one recognising the value of broader government, and the other not. Such tolerance of a larger safety net may well save lives when the time it is required arrives.

It won't just save lives, it may well save both our civilisation and our species.

 

Those are the stakes here, as much as some folks might deny it.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewzg77k721o

 

The UK's first geothermal power plant is set to go live, providing a completely new type of renewable electricity using hot water from underground.

On Thursday morning, the Cornish plant will be switched on after nearly two decades in development which required Geothermal Engineering Ltd (GEL) to drill the deepest on-shore well in the UK.

The water, super-heated by rocks, will help drive turbines to generate electricity for 10,000 homes, but will also provide the UK's first domestic supply of lithium - a critical mineral used in green technology.

The British Geological Survey said it was a "major step forward" for geothermal but high drilling costs could make replicating the project difficult.

 

Geothermal is certainly part of the suite of solutions needed. Little bit frustrating that the time and monetary costs have been so high, though. 

[SpacedX]

So Artemis 3 has now been redesignated from a crewed mission to the lunar surface to an Earth-orbit rendezvous of NASA's Orion spacecraft with one or more of the program's moon landers scheduled for next year.  The programme's first moon landing will now take place on Artemis 4, in 2028, with a potential second landing that same year with Artemis 5. Frankly, I doubt that either will happen this decade 

[danny.]

10 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

So Artemis 3 has now been redesignated from a crewed mission to the lunar surface to an Earth-orbit rendezvous of NASA's Orion spacecraft with one or more of the program's moon landers scheduled for next year.  The programme's first moon landing will now take place on Artemis 4, in 2028, with a potential second landing that same year with Artemis 5. Frankly, I doubt that either will happen this decade 

It's weird how apparently this is so tough when we did it nearly 60 years ago with computers and general tech the level of potatoes. 

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, danny. said:

It's weird how apparently this is so tough when we did it nearly 60 years ago with computers and general tech the level of potatoes. 

Except it wasn't. And what technology specifically do you think was lacking? 

 

On the subject of computers, The AGC/navigation platform pioneered the development of real-time embedded computing systems, using integrated circuit technology to miniaturise electronics and developing safety-critical software engineering practices. It was the first computer to use integrated circuits and featured a real-time operating system that allowed astronauts to enter commands. The AGC's innovations laid the foundation for modern computing, including smartphones and artificial intelligence.

 

During the Apollo Programme getting crewed missions to the moon was the job of the Apollo Guidance Computer and the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. consisting of IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment - all of which was purpose built and designed for the task. The AGC employed an instruction stack which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. The RTCC on the ground ensured that the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. It was a technological marvel.

 

 

In order to send crewed missions to the moon, you predominately need four things:

 

1/ The necessary political will.

2/ A gargantuan level of funding - (see the above).

3/ A huge nexus of supply chains, contractors, partnerships and stakeholders

4/ The requisite heavy lift capability.

 

 The USA stopped going to the moon because in the midst of an expensive foreign war, growing public apathy and disquiet, a lack of political will and the looming OPEC crisis, Congress withdrew the funding in 1972. They saw little benefit in continuing to plough in, what had been at its peak, 4% of the annual federal budget into repetition of something that had already been achieved. The Apollo Programme was cancelled meaning that the manufacturing plants, the processes, the bespoke tooling, the expertise was either retired, disassembled or moved on, whilst the sole production cycle of the necessary heavy lift capability ceased in 1969 and no one built a replacement until now. Powerful lobbying for the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme shifted the emphasis upon low Earth orbit and the subsequent construction of the ISS meant that space exploration became the preserve of much cheaper unmanned probes and landers that did not require a heavy lift rocket. The old technology of Apollo has become obsolete and defunct whilst Project Artemis is harnessing the new for much more ambitious mission profiles and objectives.

 

it's important to stress that Project Artemis is not Apollo and does not seek to replicate it. Primarily it aims to place far greater mass on the moon for significantly longer durations than Apollo.Obviously the greater the mass the more energy it takes to accelerate it because energy and mass are fundamentally related through the principle of mass-energy equivalence, and both Newton's second law (F=ma) and the concept of kinetic energy (KE = 0.5mv²) demonstrate that more massive objects require greater forces and energy to achieve the same acceleration or velocity. Additionally, Artemis will utilise near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) and distant retrograde orbit (DRO), for different missions and purposes. Artemis IV, for example, will use NRHO for the crew's lunar transit, with the SpaceX Starship Human Landing System (HLS) initially positioned in NRHO before the crew's arrival. All this creates the challenge of fuelling, and the need to refuel in space, which has never been done before. Space X are have been focussing heavily on developing the capability for space fuel transfer which will be a crucial part of any Starship deep space mission planned for the future. Starship upper stages will launch with a minimum amount of propellant onboard to conserve mass for payloads and will therefore there is a requirement to meet up with multiple tanker ships in orbit around the earth and the moon.

 

Moreover, Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018 and although some of the architecture is derived from Constellation, this all needs to undergo a thorough programme of testing and validation on an annual budget significantly less than Apollo. They have also had to contend with a pandemic, and a severely weakened global supply chain and significant delays in the design and testing of the next generation of Lunar Lander. 

 

Concorde was also designed in the 1960s and first flown four months prior to the first Apollo moon landing and yet it has not been possible to fly passengers on a commercial airliner at twice the speed of sound for approaching a quarter of a century. This in spite modern technology and composites and the concerted attempts of the aerospace engineering sector to develop a successor. It is now purportedly close, but is unlikely to enter service until next decade. Cpt. Jock Lowe, the former chief pilot of British Airway's Concorde fleet recently opined that it may well not be until mid next century - almost 100 years after the design of Concorde - if at all. 

[danny.]

13 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Except it wasn't. And what technology specifically do you think was lacking? 

 

On the subject of computers, The AGC/navigation platform pioneered the development of real-time embedded computing systems, using integrated circuit technology to miniaturise electronics and developing safety-critical software engineering practices. It was the first computer to use integrated circuits and featured a real-time operating system that allowed astronauts to enter commands. The AGC's innovations laid the foundation for modern computing, including smartphones and artificial intelligence.

 

During the Apollo Programme getting crewed missions to the moon was the job of the Apollo Guidance Computer and the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. consisting of IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment - all of which was purpose built and designed for the task. The AGC employed an instruction stack which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. The RTCC on the ground ensured that the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. It was a technological marvel.

 

 

In order to send crewed missions to the moon, you predominately need four things:

 

1/ The necessary political will.

2/ A gargantuan level of funding - (see the above).

3/ A huge nexus of supply chains, contractors, partnerships and stakeholders

4/ The requisite heavy lift capability.

 

 The USA stopped going to the moon because in the midst of an expensive foreign war, growing public apathy and disquiet, a lack of political will and the looming OPEC crisis, Congress withdrew the funding in 1972. They saw little benefit in continuing to plough in, what had been at its peak, 4% of the annual federal budget into repetition of something that had already been achieved. The Apollo Programme was cancelled meaning that the manufacturing plants, the processes, the bespoke tooling, the expertise was either retired, disassembled or moved on, whilst the sole production cycle of the necessary heavy lift capability ceased in 1969 and no one built a replacement until now. Powerful lobbying for the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme shifted the emphasis upon low Earth orbit and the subsequent construction of the ISS meant that space exploration became the preserve of much cheaper unmanned probes and landers that did not require a heavy lift rocket. The old technology of Apollo has become obsolete and defunct whilst Project Artemis is harnessing the new for much more ambitious mission profiles and objectives.

 

it's important to stress that Project Artemis is not Apollo and does not seek to replicate it. Primarily it aims to place far greater mass on the moon for significantly longer durations than Apollo.Obviously the greater the mass the more energy it takes to accelerate it because energy and mass are fundamentally related through the principle of mass-energy equivalence, and both Newton's second law (F=ma) and the concept of kinetic energy (KE = 0.5mv²) demonstrate that more massive objects require greater forces and energy to achieve the same acceleration or velocity. Additionally, Artemis will utilise near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) and distant retrograde orbit (DRO), for different missions and purposes. Artemis IV, for example, will use NRHO for the crew's lunar transit, with the SpaceX Starship Human Landing System (HLS) initially positioned in NRHO before the crew's arrival. All this creates the challenge of fuelling, and the need to refuel in space, which has never been done before. Space X are have been focussing heavily on developing the capability for space fuel transfer which will be a crucial part of any Starship deep space mission planned for the future. Starship upper stages will launch with a minimum amount of propellant onboard to conserve mass for payloads and will therefore there is a requirement to meet up with multiple tanker ships in orbit around the earth and the moon.

 

Moreover, Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018 and although some of the architecture is derived from Constellation, this all needs to undergo a thorough programme of testing and validation on an annual budget significantly less than Apollo. They have also had to contend with a pandemic, and a severely weakened global supply chain and significant delays in the design and testing of the next generation of Lunar Lander. 

 

Concorde was also designed in the 1960s and first flown four months prior to the first Apollo moon landing and yet it has not been possible to fly passengers on a commercial airliner at twice the speed of sound for approaching a quarter of a century. This in spite modern technology and composites and the concerted attempts of the aerospace engineering sector to develop a successor. It is now purportedly close, but is unlikely to enter service until next decade. Cpt. Jock Lowe, the former chief pilot of British Airway's Concorde fleet recently opined that it may well not be until mid next century - almost 100 years after the design of Concorde - if at all. 

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, that was interesting!

In terms of computing, I meant that in the 60s computers were massively larger physically than they are now, more power hungry and CPU speed/cores and memory aren't comparable at all. The Model 75J no doubt was great for its time but the Apple Watch on my wrist is exponentially more powerful.

[SpacedX]

Just now, danny. said:

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, that was interesting!

In terms of computing, I meant that in the 60s computers were massively larger physically than they are now, more power hungry and CPU speed/cores and memory aren't comparable at all. The Model 75J no doubt was great for its time but the Apple Watch on my wrist is exponentially more powerful.

Yes, absolutely understood, but as I mentioned Apollo spearheaded integrated circuit technology in order to miniaturise electronics. The Apollo guidance computer was able to fit into the command module (measuring roughly 24 x12.5 x6 inches and weighing 70 lbs) primarily through the nascent use of silicon integrated circuits (ICs) rather than discrete transistors, paired with a specialised, hand-woven pre-written core rope memory technology. While other computers of the era filled entire rooms, the AGC was a masterpiece of 1960s miniaturisation designed by MIT specifically to minimise weight and power consumption for space travel. Also, it was not so much about power, rather, purpose. 

 

And to reiterate, the Real Time Computer Complex (RTCC) was the central ground-based computing facility at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center (now Johnson Space Center) for the Gemini and Apollo programs that did fill an entire room. Utilising multiple IBM System/360 mainframes, it processed telemetry data, calculated orbital maneuvers, supported mission simulations, and provided critical data to flight controllers and was ultimately the powerhouse to ensure mission success.

[leicsmac]

14 hours ago, SpacedX said:

So Artemis 3 has now been redesignated from a crewed mission to the lunar surface to an Earth-orbit rendezvous of NASA's Orion spacecraft with one or more of the program's moon landers scheduled for next year.  The programme's first moon landing will now take place on Artemis 4, in 2028, with a potential second landing that same year with Artemis 5. Frankly, I doubt that either will happen this decade 

JFK must be rolling in his grave at how this program has been executed in terms of time management. 

 

Gemini and Apollo took roughly eight years from start to Moon, sticking to the deadline he imposed (andthat was with an large delay due to the Apollo 1 fire). This has taken over 20 since the first genesis of the Constellation program, even with the massive leaps in computing, control and material sciences since then. 

 

Deeply disappointing.

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

JFK must be rolling in his grave at how this program has been executed in terms of time management. 

 

Gemini and Apollo took roughly eight years from start to Moon, sticking to the deadline he imposed (andthat was with an large delay due to the Apollo 1 fire). This has taken over 20 since the first genesis of the Constellation program, even with the massive leaps in computing, control and material sciences since then. 

 

Deeply disappointing.

As tragic as it was, in my opinion, it is unlikely that Apollo would have succeeded in achieving Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade had it not been for the raft of technical changes and the sea change in management that was ushered in by the disaster. Apollo 8 veteran commander Frank Borman almost single handedly saved the Apollo program after the Apollo 1 fire. He went out to Downey (North American) following the disaster and on the back of the 1966 Phillips Report and instilled missing discipline and meticulous care -- things that those engineers had never internalised, since they were never before responsible for astronaut lives. Borman transformed the culture at NAA, without which failure was a real possibility.

[CornwallFox]

Abandoned coal station set to house UK's first fusion power plant https://share.google/MLCCaC6cr3nL1QAvJ

 

Attempt to use fusion in the real world

[Free Falling Foxes]

Wrong thread

 

Edited 24 March by Free Falling Foxes

[Trav Le Bleu]

We should just be thankful it's not cordyceps.

 

An unstoppable mushroom is tearing through North American forests. Fungi enthusiasts are doing damage control

 

https://share.google/AmyARlnD1aCsTv4NJ

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

We should just be thankful it's not cordyceps.

 

An unstoppable mushroom is tearing through North American forests. Fungi enthusiasts are doing damage control

 

https://share.google/AmyARlnD1aCsTv4NJ

[BKLFox]

For a little island that is continually mocked for apparently bringing nothing to the table, especially on here, we don't half knock out a few world firsts...here's another 1

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nuclear-fusion-rocket-plasma-pulsar-b2945974.html

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 26 March by BKLFox

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

For a little island that is continually mocked for apparently bringing nothing to the table, especially on here, we don't half knock out a few world firsts...here's another 1

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nuclear-fusion-rocket-plasma-pulsar-b2945974.html

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure there are many on here who have specifically derided the UKs scientific research capability, considering its one of the areas where the UK does still punch far above its weight class (in spite of the contempt that a lot of people show towards the scientific community in recent times). Rather, we are entering an age where such research needs to be done collaboratively, not competitively, or it will be to the detriment of everyone. 

 

On the breakthrough itself, it's remarkable stuff, and here's hoping it can be applied for practical use at some point in the not too distant future. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not sure there are many on here who have specifically derided the UKs scientific research capability, considering its one of the areas where the UK does still punch far above its weight class (in spite of the contempt that a lot of people show towards the scientific community in recent times). Rather, we are entering an age where such research needs to be done collaboratively, not competitively, or it will be to the detriment of everyone. 

 

On the breakthrough itself, it's remarkable stuff, and here's hoping it can be applied for practical use at some point in the not too distant future. 

Our aircraft carriers are rubbish though.

[BKLFox]

14 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Our aircraft carriers are rubbish though.

Because you mention the aircraft carriers here's another 1st fun fact..

When the RAF/FAA took charge of their new F35-B's they were advised that their was a limitation with bringing the aircraft back to land on the flight deck if it was over a certain weight due to unspent fuel & munitions, & even if under this certain weight everything had to be balanced under wing.

So, straight away the Brits looked for a way to combat this operational defect (if you like) & thus the SRVL (Shipborne rolling vertical landing) was born & allowed the F35-B to land with a significantly higher payload.

The US Navy & Marine Corp who had at this point already been using the F35-B operationally for over 3yrs before the Brits, would have to dump fuel & munitions prior to landing if over the safe weight limit, literally dumping $m's into the sea as well as the environmental issues.
The RAF then trained their US counterparts in this manoeuvre.

As they say its not the size that matters its how you use it 

 

 

 

Edited 27 March by BKLFox

[leicsmac]

Artemis II finally due for launch tomorrow. 

 

The first time any human being will have gone beyond Earth orbit in nearly 55 years. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv1q59py4go

 

Drawing some interesting parallels between the last time we went to the moon, and this time. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

On 27/03/2026 at 20:02, BKLFox said:

Because you mention the aircraft carriers here's another 1st fun fact..

When the RAF/FAA took charge of their new F35-B's they were advised that their was a limitation with bringing the aircraft back to land on the flight deck if it was over a certain weight due to unspent fuel & munitions, & even if under this certain weight everything had to be balanced under wing.

So, straight away the Brits looked for a way to combat this operational defect (if you like) & thus the SRVL (Shipborne rolling vertical landing) was born & allowed the F35-B to land with a significantly higher payload.

The US Navy & Marine Corp who had at this point already been using the F35-B operationally for over 3yrs before the Brits, would have to dump fuel & munitions prior to landing if over the safe weight limit, literally dumping $m's into the sea as well as the environmental issues.
The RAF then trained their US counterparts in this manoeuvre.

As they say its not the size that matters its how you use it 

 

 

 

Maybe the motion of the ocean would come into play too here.

[Zear0]

 

10 hours of live build up.  This is Sky Sports Man City v Liverpool levels of pre-match content.

[The Bear]

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Artemis II finally due for launch tomorrow. 

 

The first time any human being will have gone beyond Earth orbit in nearly 55 years. 

I see that the launch window is open at 23:24 tonight. 

 

Hopefully the weather holds up. 

Edited 1 April by The Bear

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

 

10 hours of live build up.  This is Sky Sports Man City v Liverpool levels of pre-match content.

 

37 minutes ago, The Bear said:

I see that the launch window is open at 23:24 tonight. 

 

Hopefully the weather holds up. 

There really should be more hype and coverage, given the magnitude of the event. 

 

Sadly it's being rather overshadowed by people being shit to each other on a large scale.