4 ms·
>The Deep Space Network has only three 70-meter dishes, and there is a lot of competition for time on them; It seems like I've heard this time and again, that
by mutagen 12y ago
>The Deep Space Network has only three 70-meter dishes, and there is a lot of competition for time on them;
It seems like I've heard this time and again, that certain data or measurements couldn't be returned from planetary spacecraft because of limitations in the DSN. I'd guess that a relatively modest investment could double or tripe the DSN availability and bandwidth simply through more antennas and the associated receivers. I'm guessing that the reasons are political (funding), are there technical issues I'm unaware of?
Off to read up on this.
edit: They are adding antennas!
- rjaco31 12y agoMaybe it's just that building a 70-meter dish is freaking expensive?
- DanBC 12y agoThere are plenty of very rich people who could spend money on 70 m dishes instead of soccer clubs or whatnot. Adding 8 antennas and infrastructure to the VLA cost about $140m http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2000/evla/ http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2000/evla/ The Green Bank telescope (largest moving land object; 100 meter dish) costs a measly $10m per year to run. (That funding is at risk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bank_Telescope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bank_Telescope
- arethuza 12y agoIf Roman Abramovich (or anyone else) wants to sink vast amounts of money into football clubs that's their call. For me a better comparison would be that $140m is slightly less than the unit cost of an F-35B.
- fapjacks 12y agoThis is absolutely the best comparison. You've really gotta wonder what the under-the-table purpose of that fighter is. As if our closer allies get told "Hey, the ante for participating in PRISM et al is buying 26 of these totally useless fighters that burn up on the runway." I am going to be totally interested in whatever gets declassified about this program in the future.
- lambdadmitry 12y agoWhy does it need to be under-the-table? It seems pretty clear to me: — military industry wanting more money — deterrence — air superiority — hi-tech jobs, research and manufacture capabilities Probably even in this priority order. The bottom line is that there is a lot of good in this "useless fighters", even if it's not as sexy/obvious as DSN. There may be a corruption element, but it doesn't mean that the program is "useless" for general public. After all, I'm writing this to you using the heir of DARPA's "stupid entanglement of number-crunching machines".
- fapjacks 12y ago> deterrence, air superiority You're implying these things can actually get off the ground. For what American taxpayers are spending on this project, you better believe there better be some bang for that buck. And so far it's amounted to essentially nothing but more of the same companies getting away with pillage.
- lambdadmitry 12y agoAccording to Red Flag results, F22s are extremely effective (e.g. [1]). In fact, even if you take an article that "criticize" F22 (like [2]) and pay an attention to what article really says, it's like "okay-okay, it's the best, BUT YOU KNOW IT CAN SUCK SOMETIMES". I understand the appeal of blaming govt on excessive spending. Being Russian, I can't agree more (our govt is way worse). However, I believe that blind and self-righteous critique like "it can't get off the ground" is destructive. [1]: http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.ru/2012/09/red-flag-2012-did-raptor-seriously-just.html http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.ru/2012/09/red-flag-2012-did-... [2]: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thrust-vectoring-raptor-typhoon-eurofighter-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thru...
- Roboprog 12y agoF22 - good; F35 - bad.
- jessriedel 12y agoI think it's pretty cheap amortized over several billion-dollar missions.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]