Slashdot Mirror

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
 
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
 
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
 
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

At risk of being called a troll ---> I am going to do a decent kind open discussion of what is known. This usually gets called troll on this forum. ---> It isn't troll rest assured!

There has been developing a serious discussion in the IEEE and in other groups of scientists who work with really hard science that cosmology as we have been generally told is just wrong. In particularly the electrical engineering technology provides accurate scalable and reliable methods and models to predict what is going on in the universe. These methodologies and quite well proved models run directly cross of a favorite theory of many scientists. The Einstein Theory of Special Relativity is the primary theory that runs cross of these results. Every time the SR theory is tested it fails. As the IEEE types theories are tested they not only predict what will be seen before hand, they do it every time.

There is a set of mathematically determined equations known as the Maxwell Equations which are standard engineering tools. These have never been found wrong. They are as close to "Facts" as we have in science. They are the basis of this new work in cosmology. Special Relativity is conversely a theory that reliably and always fails. If a decent respect to science is given, Special Relativity is a busted theory. This isn't disrespect of General Relativity. General Relativity is pretty good. It isn't 100% but it is pretty good. No disrespect of those who like Special Relativity is intended here. They just need to take a look in the context of good scientific methodology and trash the bad thinking. In all fairness these guys have a lot to contribute if they will let go of the mistakes of the past.

The Nebular Hypothesis for stellar formation etc, is also a completely busted theory. It simply has no data to stand on. We now have a strong mechanism for the formation and development of the universe. It is the EM Force. We even have good reason to believe that the G force is actually related and produced by the EM Force and is not a unique force.

The relationship to the weather in space and on the earth is as connected as the electrical circuits in your house are to the lights in your house. To assume some disconnect or that the systems are in fact different systems is mistaken. The parent of this post is a pretty good posting, but it makes the mistaken assumption that these systems are disconnected. A considerable appreciation for the fact that the parent poster has at least begun the disconnect from the old broken theories of the past is in order though. It is very hard to imagine the scale and complexity involved. I would hope that maybe some good scientific thinking will begin to start and with respect for the fact that the reality is at best poorly understood and we have many past mistakes blinding us to what is going on.

It'll be interesting to see what they find in Lake Vostok, which is a freshwater lake as big as Lake Ontario and has been sealed under Antarctic ice for up to a million years.

Could be the perfect test for a Cryobot mission to Europa

But of course, the tranmission and the particles are traveling at the speed of light so the transmission doesn't get there in time

Actually the particles are not travelling that fast, see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarstorm_s peed_040614.html which states

Potentially disruptive solar storms can't reach Earth in less than half a day, scientists have determined

An animation showing the wave moving across the sun.

No, that's just an ad agency experiment. Check the caption. Looks promising, but clearly a ways to go before they can do multicharacter messages.

Did you check the filaments photos?. It looks like the sun is asking something.

How about a solar farm in space? According to this 2001 article: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /solar_power_sats_011017-1.html NASA has a project looking at just that called Space Solar Power (SSP). It seems like it could be feasible, and solar cells in space would be able to capture light without concerns over weather then beam it back down to earth using microwaves. According to the article the biggest hurdle is launching the solar farm into space but with an increase in efficiency that means less solar cells and satellites would be needed.

Really, what the hell do you think weather is? How do you think one forecasts it? What are these things you call "maths?"

I understand if you don't want to look at the undergraduate courses and course requirements that I laid out for you. At least pretend like you did. You could even dig a little deeper to find the graduate study.

Dr. Grey is a climatologist in that he studies climate change as it relates to how hurricanes and tropical systems are formed. You'd be surprised that "Climatologist" is not a common PhD. Most "Climatologists" have their degrees in "Meteorology."

Your hair-splitting is not analogous to Physics and Math. It is more analogous to Particle Physics and Materials Science, or maybe better yet Particle Physics and Quantum Physics.

I can't and won't prove that every meteorologist studies "volcanism, glaciation and biological fluxes of CO2," but if you look in my links, you will see that some do, even at the undergraduate level.

This is the level of our discourse. I only suggested that one man had enough experience to be listened to, and that it was odd that people are tossing his views and pointing to those of someone with no experience. Now I have to prove that meteorology is at least as close to climatology as being elected to the office of Vice President.

Listen to whomever you want. Run around like a chicken with your head cut off. What pisses ME off is that Global Warming is being used as a smoke screen for far more important environmental issues.

Oh yeah, by the way, Mars is warming too.

Nuclear weapons do have a lot of use, actually. The dropping of the atomic bomb also caused A) A huge push in technology and B) A fear of war when otherwise war may have broken out.

Also, Asbestos was used since the time of the Greeks as a non-extinguishable fuel. It was also used in blankets, tablecloths, etc. It was a pretty common part of every day life. This surely helped them move forward in civilization, bringing us where we are now. Sure, it may be useless- and even dangerous- now, but that doesn't mean that it never should have been used in the first place.

Same with these apples. We may find a way to make them better for you. Jam pack them with nutrients. Whatever. 50 years from now, we may find out it was ultimately unhealthy. Who knows? But not knowing is not a valid reason for not attempting to find out. Well, there is one community where it is...but it sure ain't the scientific one.

NASDA, the Japanese space agency that has morphed into JAXA, successfully tested a protoype. The program has been canceled due to lack of funding. JAXA intends to use the experimental data and the design schematics for this prototype to develop a manned space plane.

Did the United Force Air Force somehow "borrow" the Japanese experimental data and design schematics to develop the American version of an unmanned space plane?

Personally I never watch South Park OR Al Gore. or other politicans... all are equally relavant and entertaining; not one whit
As to global warming I am sure it is warming Al's pocketbook but I foind hun causes to be somewhat...doubtful as do many who really view this with an open mind. To quote another on this; It seejms mankind's intervention must be causing warming even beyond this globe:

On Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html

On Triton: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143dat a_trunc_sys.shtml

On Saturn: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=2006 1109-022035-4126r

On Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html

On Mars: http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

Remember; Piltdown Man was accepted as totally valid by the scientists of that day...
Any time lends itself to "present knowledge chauvanism"

Personally I never watch South Park OR Al Gore. or other politicans... all are equally relavant and entertaining; not one whit
As to global warming I am sure it is warming Al's pocketbook but I foind hun causes to be somewhat...doubtful as do many who really view this with an open mind. To quote another on this; It seejms mankind's intervention must be causing warming even beyond this globe:

On Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html

On Triton: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143dat a_trunc_sys.shtml

On Saturn: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=2006 1109-022035-4126r

On Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html

On Mars: http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

Remember; Piltdown Man was accepted as totally valid by the scientists of that day...
Any time lends itself to "present knowledge chauvanism"

Mars is getting hot! http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html Jupiter is getting hot! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html Pluto is getting hot! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html I blame George Bush.

Mars is getting hot! http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html Jupiter is getting hot! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html Pluto is getting hot! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html I blame George Bush.

You *do* know that there is an asteroid on it's way here with an 1/10000 chance of impact and that 'poking it with a stick' might be enough to save us? (that is one to ten thousand, not your favourite lottery odds)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A former NASA astronaut will call on the U.S. Congress to evaluate an asteroid with a small chance of hitting Earth in 2036 and suggest lawmakers consider a space mission to monitor the object, SPACE.com has learned. http://www.space.com/news/050519_asteroid_mission. html

It will be in the best financial interest of everyone involved to stay dedicated to The Cause of The Mission, because if they get greedy now, it can be for the very time.

The real action is going to be on Phobos and Mars, in that order.

The real action is going to be on Phobos and Mars, in that order. Don't look for the next Iceland, look for the next New York City, the slam-dunk locations in space. The Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system, Earth-crossing "dead" comets and Mar's small moons are good candidates. Phobos allows both resource extraction including actual water (not maybes in polar shadows), Phobos also offers realtime contact with Mars and the convenience of working in familiar freefall. The moon has a lot of unaddressed operational issues that a Phobos/Mars orbitter and mine scheme doesn't possess. Admittedly there is a lot of handwaving in this, but we discussed the tradeoffs here:

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Boar d=businesstech&Number=503952&page=&view=&sb=&o=

Josh

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/radiation_be lts_020916.html

Obviously, this has something to do with global warming. Is the SUV's driven by left-wing soccer moms in Seattle? Or do the folks on Saturn have SUV's? Could it be the Sun has something against the rest of the solar system is just plain getting hotter? Ask Mars, he's warming up as well.

Man is a pissant when it comes to contributing to global temperatures. We are distracting ourselves from more important things that we can control, like poverty, hunger, disease, wars, and those "Head On" commercials.

Let's stop the environmental-tilting-at-windmills and fix the things we can fix. Let's expend our energies and limited electorate-goodwill where we can truly be effective.

NASA's planed return to the moon is 2018. A few bad schedule slips at NASA could see Americans following Indians back to the moon. Both sides get bonus points for an Indian American on either mission.

who is going to take the blame for warming on mars http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

While the only permanent solution for human-driven global warming is developing renewable energy

The frantic, hyperbolic, hysterical, barely-scientific side of the argument is that global warming is controllable, and caused, by-and-large, by humans. However, much of the scientific community believes that global warming is:

• 1. Driven by the Sun
  1. Driven by geological events
  1. and, minutely contributed to by human behavior

Otherwise, how do you explain that Mars, that dead, uninhabited planet is warming? (And here, too.

I'm sorry, but there a bigger fish to fry. We are expending an awful lot of goodwill on democratic voter bases by distracting them with this stuff when we should be hitting them with what really matters:

• 1. Poverty
  1. Disease
  1. Injustice

  None of which will be solved by getting my neighbor to give up his 2 trucks, '66 Charger, '66 Mustang, and 3 boats. None of which will be solved by Daryll Hannah driving a grass powered Geo.

  Let's focus on what we CAN fix and not expend energy on fear driven philosophies, adopted by those who don't realize the origins of the argument are from a much more nefarious origin.

... of global warming. You know, the sun actually putting out more energy in the last 30-40 years - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html

Why look for a scientific explanation when you can make it a political issue?

How is the world do fossils prove evolution? Where are the intermediate forms? What?! What do you mean there aren't any?

Then stop saying the fossil record "proves" evolution because it doesn't. It proves there were dinosaurs. It doesn't prove evolution at all.

So, what's the point? The current shuttle seems to have a rather serviceable, *simple* cable-based basket escape system. This new one seems way too complicated. For example, the new system: A passive magnetic and friction braking system will decelerate the cars at the tracks end as well as prevent the cars from hitting each other. The old system? The baskets hit a net at the bottom. Keep it simple, stupid.

And like someone mentioned before, the crew would actually have to exit the capsule to use this escape system. Since the Ares system actually has an escape rocket to pull the capsule away from the stack like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo had and the Soyuz has currently, I'd rather take my chances with that.

Of course, any useful background information behind this decision is behind nasaspaceflight.com's L2 pay service, so unfortunately facts on the new system are scant.

I'm all for alternative architecture, but DIRECT has several problems. The main issue is that it only "saves" money in the area of eliminating development of a second VSE rocket: the Crew Launch Vehicle AKA the Stick. It delibrately maintains the standing army of workers, which is the main cost issue with NASA manned space hardware. DIRECT tries to preserve all those jobs, while modern rockets (Atlas, Delta, Zenit and Falcon) all use radically fewer construction and deployment personell. DIRECT also has the issue of trying to make something work in an unintended way, and it requires development of a new version of the RS68. Not so direct.

Simpler modifications and evolution of existing launchers (Atlas, Delta) will achieve better results in both time and cost, IMHO.

We're discussing DIRECT on the uplink forums, too:
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=mi ssions&Number=606289&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o= 0&fpart=

josh

The thinking is that there probably *were* aquifers. Whether or not there still are is the current question du jour.

There is a story about the possible causes of martian channels over at Space.Com that speaks to this.

If you don't know all of the details, it's impossible to draw an accurate conclusion.

First, NASA has different classes of missions, such as the Discovery Programs, which are intended to be lower cost, and more science focused. (I think STEREO falls under this, but I'm not sure). The cost is claimed to be $500mil, not the 'billions' that you claimed. Yes, it's still a lot, but not all of it comes from the US.

As for the 'movie' aspect -- the satellites will be able to generate 3D movies, but it's not what you think -- only for a limited time will the satellites be at an angular seperation that's similar to the human eyes trying to look at something. For the other times, it's still useful to the scientists, but not the general public looking for pretty movies.

So ... why's it important? Well, read the FAQ. I mean, hell, wasn't just waiting for the hurricane to hit good enough? Why do we need to spend money on radar and doppler radar to actually give us advanced warning?

As for what NASA's been doing -- just read their website. (and there's lots of other breakthroughs that aren't even hard science -- technology to perform better science, etc.)

In October 2003, Indian Air Chief S. Krishnaswamy stated that India had started development of an operations command station for an eventual space platform for nuclear weapons.[10] However, he retracted the statement within days, under pressure from India's civilian leaders.[11] India: Military Programs

According to a senior U.S. Air Force official, Brazil is one of a group of countries "seriously involved in using space assets for military purposes."[1] Indeed, when Brazil became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 1995, it was allowed to keep its space launch program, despite the potential for military applications.[2] Brazil: Military Programs

Japan's Liberal Democratic Party has drafted a bill to allow Japan's into space. The calls for the military to venture into space within the parameters of self-defense rights. That would be a drastic change from the current civilian-based limitations that Japan has placed on space ventures. Japanese Military Going Into Space

Look, I'm just saying, we can't have runaway cosmic inflation tearing space to shreds. We need to secure space while we still... Wait... what?

I live about 30-45 minutes away from NRAO (and in WV, that's practically next door), I've been in the control centers for all of the telescopes, I even got to hang out with the SETI guys, before they became project phoenix.. The big dish is HUGE. The dish is the size of a football field. It weighs 16,000,000 (yes, 16 million) pounds. Here is a picture showing the GBT to scale with the washington monument and the statue of liberty: http://www.space.com/images/h_steerable_size_02.jp g

They had a telescope almost as big as that one before (I forget how big it was, and exactly when they had it), but it collapsed. That would have been something to see.

Read all about it before the Lidle crash took the top spots on Google News. It's interesting, but really, Jupiter is always up to something with that turbulent atmosphere. Streams of spots have appeared in the past and vanished again. This will probably hang around for a bit and then go the way of other spots.

Meanwhile, there's Comet C/2006 M4 (SWAN), which is near it's peak magnitude, visible just after sunset which is my primary viewing target this weekend. It's going to be around until early December, but at declining magnitudes.

Ob ISR Post:

In Soviet Russia little reds spot YOU!

you hear the ghost of Bill Goodwin ellaborating on swan, the new white floating comet

"...So on top of worrying about global warming, it seems we should also worry about the physics that govern the orbit of Earth around the sun. Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation."

Yes, we have! And it's very interesting indeed!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ earth_move_010207.html

A link to the paper: Korycansky, D. G.; Laughlin, Gregory; Adams, Fred C. Astronomical engineering: a strategy for modifying planetary orbits. Astrophys.Space Sci. 275 (2001) 349-366
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102126
Abstract:
"The Sun's gradual brightening will seriously compromise the Earth's biosphere within ~ 1E9 years. If Earth's orbit migrates outward, however, the biosphere could remain intact over the entire main-sequence lifetime of the Sun. In this paper, we explore the feasibility of engineering such a migration over a long time period. The basic mechanism uses gravitational assists to (in effect) transfer orbital energy from Jupiter to the Earth, and thereby enlarges the orbital radius of Earth. This transfer is accomplished by a suitable intermediate body, either a Kuiper Belt object or a main belt asteroid. The object first encounters Earth during an inward pass on its initial highly elliptical orbit of large (~ 300 AU) semimajor axis. The encounter transfers energy from the object to the Earth in standard gravity-assist fashion by passing close to the leading limb of the planet. The resulting outbound trajectory of the object must cross the orbit of Jupiter; with proper timing, the outbound object encounters Jupiter and picks up the energy it lost to Earth. With small corrections to the trajectory, or additional planetary encounters (e.g., with Saturn), the object can repeat this process over many encounters. To maintain its present flux of solar energy, the Earth must experience roughly one encounter every 6000 years (for an object mass of 1E22 g). We develop the details of this scheme and discuss its ramifications."

Any speculation as to what would happen should two black holes get caught in each other's event horizons?

Previously there have been some trial balloons by the Airforce (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,13 45460,00.html and http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /higher_ground_040222.html) who really wanted to add "space warfare" to their portfolio, and now it's been enshrined in national policy.

Ensuring US superiority in space ... that's what the new policy boils down to.

I just wonder what the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians the Brazilians, the Japanese, and the Europeans are going to think of it. Will they agree to US space superiority or might they perhaps start space weaponisation programs of their own?

And what about the cost? Could it be that in the long run it will cost the US less to secure its national interests by aiming for parity and a reasonable deterrent instead of starting yet another arms race in search of superiority? I wonder.

I'll say one thing for the current administration ... if there is even a remote chance of turning a conflict on interest into a real conflict they can be relied on to identify it and steer that way.

What's up with that plan? Iraq gotcher tongue?...or maybe were those just political grand standing?

5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html) 6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)

5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html) 6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)

3.) Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.

That's incorrect. See here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html

And for the record, a minor correction on my part, the increase in the Sun's activity isn't 10% in 15 years but rather 1.5-2.0% in 30 years. Regardless, my point is it's getting warmer which may explain why the Earth is also warmer.

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.
4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html)
6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html)? What about the American dust bowl in the early 1930's? Was that caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.
4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html)
6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html)? What about the American dust bowl in the early 1930's? Was that caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

Sort of like this?

"I would hope that repairing the existing telescope would be cheaper than putting up a new one"

the estimate for a Hubble repair mission is $1.7 billion-$2.4 billion:

http://www.space.com/news/ft_hubble_cost_041207.ht ml

"For about the same amount of money, the report said, two new instruments that the robot would install on Hubble could instead be flown on a brand new telescope."

Have you noticed that the countries with the largest militaries are the one's with the most capable space programs?

Wasn't there recently a probe with an ION-engine, developed in Europe, launched to fly to the moon? (SMART 1)

I believe many Americans have a misconception of "a European country". Before you jump into the argument; but that isn't a country! You cannot compare the "United states" to an individual country in Europe; our countries are under the size of states in the US. Europe is just that; "united western countries", as the US consists from "united states".