Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- From: "Ian Parker" <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Nov 2005 00:43:51 -0800
>Yikes! Much easier said than done, by far! You may not
>fully appreciate how primitive today's robot technology is.
You do not need a sophisticated robot for Hubble. You just need Virtual
Reality. To maintain James Webb you need a much more spohisticated
robot. This is because of time of flight of light. If you are less than
0.005sec, 0.1 sec return or 15,000 km away, interactions are
instantaneous psychologically speaking. Anything up to about 30,000km
and you probably wont notice it that much. At a million km you can ony
issue generalized commands like "remove that bolt".
I would not consider it beyong the wit of todays technology to produce
a radio controlled tool which would maintain Hubble.
.
- References:
- What's a good "proton reflector"?
- From: mechdan
- Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- From: mechdan
- Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- From: mechdan
- What's a good "proton reflector"?
- Prev by Date: Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- Next by Date: Re: Falling ball, deviation due to earth rotation
- Previous by thread: Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- Next by thread: Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|