Breaking News
Blog

Needed: A U.S. space strategy for reaching Mars

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
dirk.bruere
User Rank
Author
re: Needed: A U.S. space strategy for reaching Mars
dirk.bruere   4/14/2010 5:41:53 PM
NO RATINGS
The only reliable way US astronauts are going to get to Mars is if they thumb a ride with the Chinese. Maybe the US and NASA can supply the space-cooks and toilet cleaners.

Nirav Desai
User Rank
Author
re: Needed: A U.S. space strategy for reaching Mars
Nirav Desai   4/15/2010 5:52:25 AM
NO RATINGS
There is a lot of hue and cry over the loss of jobs from the closure of the Space Shuttle program. But considering the fact that the responsibilities of the Space Shuttle Program to ferry humans to LEO is now being given to the private sector and companies like SpaceX it only means that the jobs are going from NASA to SpaceX. I think the handing over of responsibilities of LEO journeys to the private sector can be made so that the loss of jobs in NASA can be now absorbed in the private sector. Any reasons why this cant be done ? And by doing this NASA can focus on Space Exploration and Research the way it was meant to be initially.

dirk.bruere
User Rank
Author
re: Needed: A U.S. space strategy for reaching Mars
dirk.bruere   4/15/2010 2:13:14 PM
NO RATINGS
I doubt all the jobs from NASA will go to SpaceX, on the grounds that SpaceX is likely vastly more efficient than the bloated NASA bureaucracy.

Harry911
User Rank
Author
re: Needed: A U.S. space strategy for reaching Mars
Harry911   4/30/2010 2:48:00 PM
NO RATINGS
The Soviets never sent a man to the moon, even though they could easily have done so. Why? Because they knew there is nothing to be gained by doing so. The US space program was a large propaganda campaign, a triumph of politics and marketing, not of science and engineering. It was an act of fear and paranoia by a society that not too long ago was burning "witches". Nobody goes to the moon today, yet we all benefit from hundreds of satellites, the real-world non-sensational technology pioneered by the Soviets. Many tout the technologies which originated in the space program, and which went on to benefit society. What they fail to realize is that if the money spent on the wasteful space program had instead been spent on solving the relevant problems, we would now have better solutions to more problems. The space program was targeted towards a one-of-a-kind critical mission, meaning that all environmental concerns were put aside, the thinking being that this would only be done occasionally and so the minor resulting use of highly toxic chemicals and processes would not be a problem. The result is that all of us now use, or are exposed to, toxic epoxies, paints, cleaners, and other chemicals which cause neural, kidney, liver, and reproductive damage, as well as being carcinogens and allergen sensitizers. These harmful technologies have not become entrenched, meaning that it is next to impossible to break away from them. Mars is best explored by robots, since they are light, small, durable, immune to cold and radiation, don't need life support systems, and don't have to be brought back to earth! Yet the politicians, false scientists, and brainless sensationalists have once again embarked on steering the clueless public in to funding a truly inappropriate "science project".

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed