Slashdot Mirror


NASA's LLCD Tests Confirm Laser Communication Capabilities In Space

An anonymous reader writes "This week, NASA released the results of its Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration's (LLCD) 30-day test carried out by its Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) that is currently in orbit around the Moon. According to the space agency, the LLCD mission proved that laser communications are practical at a distance of a quarter of a million miles and that such a system could perform as well, if not better, than any NASA radio system."

66 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does this make what SETI is looking for pointless? Should they instead be looking for lasers if they work better for communication.

    1. Re:SETI by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The earth orbits where the sun is right now. It takes light about 8 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.

      No. It also takes 8 minutes for changes in the gravitational field to travel from the sun to the earth.

      The earth orbits, where the Sun appears to be; as the Sun appears to move, the gravitational field changes.

      These changes are delayed by 8 minutes.

      The constant 'c' from special relativity is not just the speed of light in a vacuum -- it is also the highest possible speed for any physical interaction within nature, and the conversion factor from changing units of time into units of space.

      Gravitational waves, Gluons, Photons, and other massless particles travel at a maximum speed of c.

      It is impossible to convey information at a speed faster than c.

      There are cases where a wave can propagate faster than c, but no information can be conveyed faster than light.

    2. Re:SETI by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The earth orbits where the sun is right now.

      It does, but not for the reasons you claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:SETI by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      No but then you simply can't intercept Whisker Lasers easily. You need to get a stealthed Recon-drone in the beam to do so.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    4. Re:SETI by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Does this make what SETI is looking for pointless? Should they instead be looking for lasers if they work better for communication.

      Why would any of those lasers be aimed at us?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:SETI by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      In other words, because we orbit the sun and not vice versa, the sun is pretty much still in the same place as it was eight minutes ago, and will be in the same place eight minutes from now?

      When we look up and see the sun, we're only seeing it how it looked eight minutes ago, but it's in the same apparent position in the sky that it would be whatever the speed of light was.

      Is that right?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:SETI by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The earth orbits, where the Sun appears to be; as the Sun appears to move, the gravitational field changes.

      The Sun is where it appears to be - we're orbiting it, not the other way around, so if you received a photon from the Sun and sent one back in the same direction, it would hit the Sun - it wouldn't miss it.

      Right?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:SETI by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There are cases where a wave can propagate faster than c, but no information can be conveyed faster than light.

      Interesting, I'd not heard of waves that can propagate faster than c, can you link to more info? If a wave can propagate faster than c then why can't it carry information?

    8. Re:SETI by snooo53 · · Score: 1

      The Planetary Society is doing an optical SETI search for laser signals. http://www.planetary.org/explore/projects/seti/optical-seti.html/ Is it pointless? Well, you don't know until you look, and even then it could take a very very long time. Problem with a laser is you have to point it somewhere

      --
      The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
    9. Re:SETI by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Usually the issue is that by the time the wave arrives at you, you can't figure out which parts of it are actually information, and which parts of it are noise.

    10. Re:SETI by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Wrong. The sun is orbiting the galactic core at about 828,000 km/h, giving it a non-inertial reference frame. In the eight minutes it takes sunlight light to reach us the sun has moved 110,400 km within the galaxy. Then there's the velocity of our galaxy within it's cluster (and our cluster within its super-cluster, etc)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:SETI by fisted · · Score: 1

      they try to understand it, but AFAIK it's pretty clear that you cannot convey information through entanglemet either

    12. Re:SETI by hubie · · Score: 2

      It has to do with the difference between phase and group velocities when dealing with groups of waves. You can have a phase velocity greater than c but information is transferred via the group velocity. One place to start is here, another here. You can find some nice applets around that will show it to you graphically. The topic comes up from time to time because it is at the heart of the misunderstanding of faster-than-light "photons".

    13. Re:SETI by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know anything about physics, but I have heard this quote:

      When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. - Arthur C Clarke

    14. Re:SETI by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I have heard this. I've also heard that it's an urban myth. And that it's a real phenomena, but that the discrepancy only exists when analyzing the system in terms of Newtonian gravitation, and disappears when analyzed in terms of Relativity. Take your pick.

      Regardless, we *are* looking for gravity waves - we've found tightly-orbiting binary star systems that are losing energy at precisely the rate predicted by the emission of gravity waves propagating at light speed (a different speed of gravity wave propagation would mean a different rate of energy loss). And we've built gravity wave detectors so sensitive that they should be able to detect the asymmetric spatial distortions created by gravity waves far weaker than those that the are being emitted by the binary stars.

      And so far they have detected *nothing*. Not even a ripple. Which is a rather major mystery that, to me at least, suggests there's something important we don't yet understand about gravity.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:SETI by flonker · · Score: 1, Informative

      A great example of this that I've seen is: Shine a spotlight at the moon (from Earth) and sweep it across the surface. You can move the spot faster than the speed of light, thus the wave moves faster than c, but no individual photon moves faster than c, and no information is conveyed faster than c.

    16. Re:SETI by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I would suggest looking up the Nimtz double-prism experiment

      Apparent faster than c transmission has been observed to be exceeded based on comparison of arrival times b/w groups of waves. transmitted and reflected waves arrived at detectors simultaneously, despite the transmitted light having also traversed an additional distance across a gap

    17. Re:SETI by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 2

      Not that anyone has figured out yet anyway. I wouldn't wish to preclude the possibility.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    18. Re:SETI by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      this would be like those pulsar things that would be an extraordinary amount of energy if they radiated in all directions, but reasonable if it were a pulse of directed energy. which begs the question - why are they pointed at earth? one solution is clear. angels. it's a wonderful life!

    19. Re:SETI by Solandri · · Score: 2

      No, he's mostly correct. The Earth is also moving around the galactic core with the sun, so the relative motion is just the Earth's orbit around the sun.

      The distinction here is between linear and rotational movement. The sun's movement for the year (i.e. relative to background stars) is a linear movement (changes in relative position between observer and subject) and thus is affected by relativity and the 8.3 min travel time of light. Since it's only traversing a bit less than one degree per day (360 degrees in 365.24 days), this motion is very small. In 8.3 minutes the sun's actual position changes an almost imperceptible 0.0057 degrees.

      Nearly all of the sun's "movement" across the sky is caused by the Earth's rotation (change in orientation of the observer) and thus is not affected by relativity and the 8.3 min travel time of light. The sun is where it appears to be right now, even though the sun appears to have moved 2.1 degrees in the sky during the 8.3 minutes it takes its light to reach us. If this weren't the case, if you spun around 360 degrees in 1 second, a star 1 million light years away would have traveled 2*pi*1 million light years in 1 second, far exceeding the speed of light.

      There is no absolute reference frame for linear motion. If I'm on a spaceship moving at 10 km/s relative to your spaceship, we cannot tell if I'm stationary and you're moving at 10 km/s, or if you're stationary and I'm moving at 10 km/s. But there is an absolute reference frame for rotation. If I'm rotating I'll experience centrifugal (centripetal) forces, which disappear when I'm no longer rotating.

    20. Re:SETI by fisted · · Score: 1

      Sure there's the possibility that our current standard model is absolutely wrong, nobody's precluding that.
      In our current standard model, however, it's pretty much given that information can't be conveyed FTL, not at least becasue that conflicts with causality.

    21. Re:SETI by symbolset · · Score: 1

      The idea is that any sufficiently advanced interstellar species using lasers for long-distance communications will have enough of them that at any given moment they will be pointed every which way. Much like a normal sophisticated urban human is carrying multiple radio devices.

      Although tenuous, it does get away from the background glare problem. Nobody out there is going to see an Earth based laser unless we're using one powerful enough to push a solar sail on an interstellar probe because glare of the sun is so close. But a comms laser from Ceres to the moons of Saturn? Maybe. A comms laser returning data from an outbound comet to a relay in orbit around Saturn? Certainly.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    22. Re:SETI by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's why I specified rotational movement, which is "real" and thus could be responsible for bizarre anomalies. Presuming the validity of General Relativity, linear movement is irrelevant to the discussion - just say that the sun is standing still while the rest of the universe is moving past and it is so.

      So perhaps you can flesh out what I've forgotten and Google refuses to reveal: I could swear that I've heard from a reputable source that there is a measurable discrepancy between where the sun appears to be, and where it actually is. Clearly Earth's rotation can't account for such a thing - as you say if the sun is (effectively) standing still then when the sun is physically directly overhead then sunlight will be hitting me from the exact same direction, even if those particular photons did leave the sun when it was still a couple degrees from high noon. Did I really end up incorporating a chunk of BS into my catalog of reputable celestial phenomena?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    23. Re:SETI by fisted · · Score: 1

      IOW, regardless of what a distinguished elderly scientists says, it's possible, for arbitrary values of 'it'.

    24. Re:SETI by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Interesting, thank you. The wikipedia article says "Nimtz stated that the frequency modulated (FM) carrier wave transported the 40th symphony of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 4.7 times faster than light due to the effect of quantum tunneling." So it appears that he did, in fact, transmit information faster than c.

      Now I need to read up on quantum tunneling.

    25. Re:SETI by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      We live in 4 dimensions. People keep forgetting Time.
      And the flow of time is still not completely ruled out to be adjustable, The relativity experiments proved that.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    26. Re:SETI by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ah, wait a minute - the Earth is moving as well as rotating. So the photons reaching Earth are moving (relative to Earth) with a velocity that is the combination of their initial velocity and Earth's orthogonal velocity. Meaning they should appear to be slightly blue-shifted, and coming from a point slightly more in front of the Earth in it's orbit. Unfortunately I can't remember the details of relativistic velocity addition offhand, so I can't calculate the exact angle of the discrepancy.

      Given that, then if gravity travels through space at a finite speed then a similar discrepancy should exist, with gravitons hitting the Earth from slighty "in front", and accelerating the planet in it's orbit. Which apparently is not happening. That would seem to suggest that gravity doesn't actually travel through space at finite speed, which leaves open the possibilities of instantaneous gravity, or that gravity is a property of the space itself, and not something that travels through space, which would seem to be exactly what Einstein said. Gravity could propagate very slowly, but once "in place" the geometry of space is different, and anything passing through that space will be "deflected" as it follows a straight line through curved space.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    27. Re:SETI by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Which is also why civilizations at the core of the galaxy could easily be far more advanced than us because the are traveling at a slower speed than us out here on the rim. Time for them is flowing at a different rate than us.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    28. Re:SETI by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Very reasonable, thank you.

    29. Re:SETI by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Does this make what SETI is looking for pointless? Should they instead be looking for lasers if they work better for communication.

      No. SETI should be looking for sharks - duh.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    30. Re:SETI by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "It is impossible to convey information at a speed faster than c. " It could be possible and we just have not discovered it yet. Unless you know something and just haven't got around to sharing yet. We have a lot of theories and mathematical constructs but if just one of these theories is wrong we would have to re-evaluate all of the assumptions. Especially since some of the baseline theories are based upon mathematical equations that have needed to numerical constants added to make the equations actually work.

    31. Re:SETI by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Nimtz stated that the frequency modulated (FM) carrier wave transported the 40th symphony of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 4.7 times faster than light due to the effect of quantum tunneling." So it appears that he did, in fact, state that he transmit[ted] information faster than c.

      FTFY. Still plenty of contention surrounding the experiment and the many possible interpretations of it, by the looks of things.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    32. Re: SETI by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      From the link:

      The Earth does in fact orbit the sun.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    33. Re:SETI by hubie · · Score: 1

      Ah, wait a minute - the Earth is moving as well as rotating. So the photons reaching Earth are moving (relative to Earth) with a velocity that is the combination of their initial velocity and Earth's orthogonal velocity. Meaning they should appear to be slightly blue-shifted, and coming from a point slightly more in front of the Earth in it's orbit. Unfortunately I can't remember the details of relativistic velocity addition offhand, so I can't calculate the exact angle of the discrepancy.

      This is referred to as The Aberation of Light , which is an unfortunate name because light aberration has a different meaning with regards to optical systems.

      Given that, then if gravity travels through space at a finite speed then a similar discrepancy should exist, with gravitons hitting the Earth from slighty "in front", and accelerating the planet in it's orbit.

      This makes no sense to me.

    34. Re:SETI by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that name, now I know I'm not crazy and have a starting point for further research.

      >This makes no sense to me.
      Okay - so we agree that the sun appears slightly "in front of" it's actual position, yes? And, from the perspective of an Earthbound observer that is a real phenomena - the photons are actually hitting the Earth from a direction other than directly sunward. Agreed?

      Now imagine that, in addition to light, those photons carry a tiny bit of pull which will, on impact, pull the object in the direction they were coming from. And since the photons are not coming from the direction of the sun, the force they impart will not be directly toward the sun. That is to say their pull would be not towards the actual sun, but towards the apparent sun. To see the consequence we can decompose the force vector into radial and tangential components: The large radial component will keep the Earth going in circles, and the tiny tangential component will cause it to gradually orbit faster.

      Now obviously the photons themselves aren't carrying gravity, but the mechanism I described is how we currently believe all other forces are transmitted, via what's known as force-carrier particles - when we discuss something like an electric field, what we're actually discussing is a region of space in which electrostatic force-carrier particles are flowing. If gravity were transmitted via force-carrier particles (gravitons) traveling at light speed then they'd be traveling right alongside the photons, and the acceleration would be the same as if it were the photons itself exerting the pull.

      Does that make more sense?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    35. Re:SETI by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >as if it were the photons itself exerting the pull.
      should be
      as if the photons themselves were transmitting the pull.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    36. Re:SETI by jd · · Score: 1

      Optical SETI is an active field of research. It doesn't get talked about as much as radio SETI, in part because it is only recently that optical interferometry arrays became possible, in part because optical telescope time is expensive and in part because the atmosphere limits the quality of data for optics. There are (very recent) developments in autocorrection that reduce atmospherics, but the reality is that until someone parks an optical SKA telescope in space, the quality of telescope data won't be sufficient.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    37. Re:SETI by hubie · · Score: 1

      The thing you need to be careful of is mixing Newtonian ideas (instantaneous force vectors) with quantum or relativistic phenomena. However, there are many similarities between gravity and electromagnetism. If you go through all the math and consider the propagation delay between a moving charged particle and one at rest, it works out that the force vector points towards the instantaneous position of the moving charged particle because the EM field of the moving particle has a velocity-dependent component that cancels out the propagation delay effect. A similar thing happens if you work through the uglier equations of General Relativity, but the cancellation effect is not exact, and this difference is what gives rise to gravitational radiation (and is why we believe orbital pulsar systems have decaying orbits), and is also why we do not seem to detect a gravitational aberration effect..

      This paper explains it pretty well. The math isn't too bad, though it uses tensor notation so it can look a bit intimidating if you're not used to it, but the text around the equations is pretty good.

    38. Re:SETI by hubie · · Score: 1

      The force of gravity is faster than light. Why this isn't widely known is a mystery to me (probably breaks someone's pet model - you think science doesn't have heretics?) but it's true. The earth doesn't orbit where the sun was 8 minutes ago. If it did it would have long ago left the solar system. The earth orbits where the sun is right now. It takes light about 8 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.

      Do the math sometime and you'll see that you are wrong (you are right that it orbits where the sun is now, but not for the reasons you think); or at least, do the math from our current models. I don't know what the math would say from whatever model your theory is.

      As for heretics and pet models, a summary of where the current pet models stand with regard to being tested can be found here. From the conclusion:

      All present experimental tests are compatible with the predictions of the current “standard” theory of gravitation: Einstein’s General Relativity. The universality of the coupling between matter and gravity (Equivalence Principle) has been verified around the 10^(-13) level. Solar system experiments have tested the weak-field predictions of Einstein’s theory at the 10^(-4) level (and down to the 2 × 10^(-5) level for the post-Einstein parameter gamma-bar). The propagation properties of relativistic gravity, as well as several of its strong-field aspects, have been verified at the 10^(-3) level (or better) in several binary pulsar experiments. Recent laboratory experiments have set strong constraints on sub-millimeter modifications of Newtonian gravity. Quantitative confirmations of General Relativity have also been obtained on astrophysical and cosmological scales (assuming dark matter and a cosmological constant).

      This pet theory is almost 100 year old now, and though there is still lots of interesting things to study and find, it does not have a problem explaining the orbits of the Earth and Sun as you seem to think it does.

    39. Re:SETI by cusco · · Score: 1

      Considering that we only recently have figured out that we can't even detect around 9/10 of the matter and energy in the universe I think that there is quite a lot we don't understand.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    40. Re:SETI by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No argument. But in fairness, that 90% estimate is based on the assumption that we *do* understand gravity. Even a relatively "simple" and non-controversial reanalysis using Relativity instead of Newtonian Gravity mostly eliminates the galactic rotation problem, which weakens the case for dark matter, and dark energy has an even more tenuous evidence base. And there are several theories that suppose that either or both are actually artifacts of space-time itself, with no need for some sort of mysteriously undetectable mass-energy to exist within it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    41. Re:SETI by Antonovich · · Score: 1

      Ah the good ol' "it can't be wrong because mathematics says so". This is one of the most misunderstood things about the universe and our attempts at understanding it, and unfortunately something many scientists don't even properly grasp. Without getting into an historical account of the development of Western semiotics and the ways in which our culture (and now many others) construe notions such as "truth" and "logic", we need look no further than "what is science". Science, in the Western tradition, is about attempting to describe the world around us with patterns we observe. Mathematics is a tool that helps us do this, and not some magical "truth-maker" - we are not discovering the mind of God, one differential equation at a time, we are looking at the world around us and describing it. Science over the last few centuries has been very good at giving us great predictive power, and is getting better at it every day. Some might say that is, indeed, the point of it. Over the centuries scholars have invented new tools to aid us in describing and predicting, and it is folly to think that this will not continue. Mathematics, as a tool, cannot be "wrong". It can be fit for purpose or not.

    42. Re:SETI by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And over several milennia that is a HUGE margin.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    43. Re:SETI by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      True, it's only what he claims.

  2. Re:That's Great by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    cat, just because we dont have a large manned space program does not mean we dont have a space program. I would say that we have found out more about space and moons and planets and stars in the previous 10 years than at any time in the past. Sure it is not as flashy as sending an astronaut to the moon or mars, which I am in agreement with you that we need to be working harder on our manned missions, but to say our space program is dead is just simply wrong

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  3. No and no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    SETI is about detecting ambient electromagentic waves that may be of an "intelligent" origin. Lasers, however, are a specific form of electromagnetic wave. So in some sense, SETI is already looking for them.

    Now, lasers used for communications like this are of the utmost quality. Their dispersion (that is, how much the beam of light separates over time and distance) is very minimal. While a flashlight may have a large dispersion measured in meters a few centimeters from the light source, lasers used for communications usually have a dispersion of less than a tenth of a millimeter over hundreds of thousands of kilometers. This means that we're looking at dispersion of only a few millimeters after millions of kilometers. Even after traveling billions upon billions of kilometers, the dispersion is still measured in only a handful of meters.

    Since there's so little dispersion of our modern-day high-quality laser beams, and it's likely that any other "intelligence" could very well have lasers far superior to ours, trying to detect them would be very, very difficult unless you're at the specific location you were targeted at. It's very unlikely that the laserbeam, given its relatively small size, would directly it a SETI detection device.

    To put things in perspective, imagine that you're standing at one end of a football field. Then imagine your friend is at the other end. Your friend has a sewing needle, and is somehow able to throw it at you over that distance. The likelihood of SETI successfully capturing an arbitrary laser-based communication signal is still far, far less probable than you catching the sewing needle thrown by your friend from 100 meters away directly in your penis' urethra. I hope that puts it in perspective.

    SETI should keep doing what they're doing, because while it's similar in nature to what'd be needed to detect laser-based signals, there's still the probability that any "intelligence" out there may have discovered radio technology first, and they are transmissions that are far easier and much more likely to be detected by non-target receivers.

    1. Re:No and no. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What about reflections. I noticed ambient glows around the areas where a laser pointed is directed at so I assume that some of the light scatters when it is reflected from any surface not a mirror.

      So lets assume two space crafts (man made) are using lasers to communicate in an orbit around mars, would we be able to detect and decode the communications from the reflections and scatter without directly watching the crafts or would it disperse so much that it wouldn't be noticeable from the earth.

    2. Re:No and no. by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

      and it's likely that any other "intelligence" could very well have lasers far superior to ours ... "Why do you think that is the case? " Because they are Republicans! Denny Crane.

  4. It Should Also Be Good For by JohnPerkins · · Score: 2

    ...dealing with telepathic cats.

  5. Re:That's Great by m00sh · · Score: 1

    cat, just because we dont have a large manned space program does not mean we dont have a space program. I would say that we have found out more about space and moons and planets and stars in the previous 10 years than at any time in the past. Sure it is not as flashy as sending an astronaut to the moon or mars, which I am in agreement with you that we need to be working harder on our manned missions, but to say our space program is dead is just simply wrong

    I hope this is not one of those five year technologies.

    Slashdot is full of stories about this new technology and that new technology that will be ready in five years. These then just vanish after the story first appears.

    After the story is published and we comment, it is forgotten and nobody is held accountable for publishing bullshit.

    Maybe someone should do a review of stories published 5 years ago of new technologies that have never materialized. I remember five years ago there used to be so many stories of new storage technologies about storing in DNA, some crystal lattices. nano-structures and so on.

  6. Re:That's Great by causality · · Score: 1

    Sure it is not as flashy as creating an Immanuel Goldstein out of a nation that's not really such a threat to us, that we often armed and trained first, then spending many times the resources in order to go overseas to shoot up and blow up some brown people with unfamiliar names to keep the military industrial complex satiated, but to say our miniscule, neglected, space program (that no longer inspires the nation) is dead is just simply wrong

    Fixed that for you. It must have really been something to have heard Kennedy declare that we choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard. A sense of purpose and a sort of pride that came from technical achievement and engineering marvels rather than the comparatively simple matter of sending the world's strongest military against some of the world's weakest militaries. This generation has nothing quite like that.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  7. Re:Sharks on the Moon by JustOK · · Score: 1

    Yes, but they won't have fins.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  8. That was pre-Boomer America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember 1961 fondly. I was 31 then. You need to understand that those were very different times. That was pre-Boomer America, which I can assure you was much better than the post-Boomer America we have to deal with now. I'm not looking back through rose-colored glasses, either. The people and accomplishments speak for themselves.

    Back then, America was a meritocracy. Those who were were good, regardless of origin or background, succeeded. Those who were great excelled. Those who couldn't were rightfully shunned. Resources were funneled to those who could accomplish great things. And as would be expected, great things were accomplished. July 20, 1969 is a perfect example of this.

    But then the Baby Boomers came onto the scene in the mid-1960s. It's safe to say that, as a generation, they have managed to destroy America. Coming from unearned privilege, they did not realize the importance of merit and hard work. Everything was just handed to them. They extended that mentality to everything they got involved with.

    As time progressed, Boomers got involved with government and business. Rather than being a limited tool to help society achieve initiatives where the direct financial profit may be small or nonexistent, but the social benefits still large nevertheless, the Boomers converted government into a vehicle for handouts.

    Just look where we are today, thanks to the Boomers. Their ruination of government now results in huge sums of money going toward poor, useless, dumb-as-dirt Southerners who waste it on junk food. Then there's the so-called "corporate welfare" going to inefficient, uncompetitive private enterprises. Meanwhile, the budgets of NASA and other actually useful organizations have been slashed to nearly nothing.

    Baby Boomers do not know how to properly allocate resources, and that's why so much of America's economy is in turmoil, and its scientific research capabilities severely compromised. Baby Boomers, in a single generation, managed to destroy what was the most productive and capable society that has ever existed. It's one of the greatest shames of history.

    1. Re:That was pre-Boomer America. by khallow · · Score: 1

      But then the Baby Boomers came onto the scene in the mid-1960s. It's safe to say that, as a generation, they have managed to destroy America.

      I'd start looking for someone to blame by looking in the mirror. Boomers didn't create the majority of the entitlements, for example. A bunch of that stuff started broken. Nor did they raise the Boomer generation.

      Nor did they create seven billion people currently on Earth or the economics and technologies that drive globalism. Those people compete with US workers for jobs and for a lot of industries are simply a better choice - no matter the generation of the US worker. I think how they tried to escape that problem is deeply in fault, but it's something that anyone born in the past century would have tried.

      Nor did Boomers create the massive US problems of the 60s and 70s, such as pollution, the Vietnam War, dependency on oil, the Mafia, creation of the Rust Belt, etc.

      Even today's problems can't be fully blamed on the Boomers. They didn't force young adults to suck up lots of student loan debt or vote for charlatans, for example.

    2. Re:That was pre-Boomer America. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      I remember 1961 fondly. I was 31 then. You need to understand that those were very different times. That was pre-Boomer America, which I can assure you was much better than the post-Boomer America we have to deal with now. I'm not looking back through rose-colored glasses, either. The people and accomplishments speak for themselves.

      As one of the 'last' of the boomers (b. '64) I'd love to be able to swallow your wholly-generational explanation for the general Suck of things but I cannot. I see too many re-connections of the same bad ideas across generations, often re-sold to the younger under thin new guises. Would that I took a position such as yours, I'd have a few younger generations to blame. But I will not sling it their way either.

      A generational explanation does not explain the phenomenon that is Donald Rumsfeld for example, who cut his political teeth during one of the most drawn-out and pointless conflicts of the 20th century, only did he learn anything? No, rather he subsequently 'used' his venerated status to lure the United States into Afghanistan (for 'revenge') then into Iraq (under known-false pretenses) just as his younger neocon proxies are now doing to bring us to the brink of war with Iran. But as Ron Paul says, they attack us because we've been over there."

      If the Flower Children have a fault, it is that they have been a bit too trusting, too distractable and too utopian for the room. And a tad short on the context of historical cause and effect. It was their Boomer parents who have failed to instill in them a broad and nuanced appreciation of history. And especially how it repeats itself.

      In 2001 it was the Boomer demographic led the United States into pre-emptive war in the Middle East, believing that it was direct retribution for the felling of the Towers -- sold as a shocking and sudden Pearl Harbor. But yet, Pearl Harbor itself occurred during a time in which we had already declared war on Japan by blockade, a time in which direct conflict was inevitable. Though the war with Japan began (for most Americans) under the false pretense of a 'surprise' attack, I nevertheless consider the war itself just, as an unchallenged Japan allied with Germany would surely have been our downfall.

      A similar historical disconnect occurs at the end of WWII, where an alarming number of Flower Children and their progeny consider the use of the Atomic Weapon to be not merely unjustified, actually a crime against humanity. Again the historical context fails them. For despite the fact that Japan was in retreat, they were on the eve of massively unleashing a devastating new weapon themselves -- the Kamikaze aircraft -- which would have destroyed the United States' fleet and turned the tides of war completely. Only the Bomb (and their belief that we had more than two of them) saved the United States and Japan from a gruesome escalation.

      Now we have a President who champions Socialism under new and trendy names despite a clear warning from Putin (of all people) that it does not work. Go figure.

      Baby Boomers do not know how to properly allocate resources, and that's why so much of America's economy is in turmoil, and its scientific research capabilities severely compromised.

      Who is John Galt?

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    3. Re:That was pre-Boomer America. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I doubt the veracity of your story. It very much sounds to me like you likely were not in the top 10% of your class, regardless of what you may believe. The talks you got were likely because of this, not because of your gender.

      My mother went through the same stuff. She attended University College of Bangor in the late 60s acquiring a BS in Chemical Engineering. From what I gather, while there were some overtly sexist people among both students and teachers, there was also occasionally the attitude that she couldn't possibly be a good student because she was female. Fortunately, she didn't listen to the people who thought they were being helpful.

      The Baby Boomer attitude is that everybody should be in the top 10%, whether they deserve it or not, and whether they actually are or not.

      No, that isn't the "Baby Boomer attitude". I find it rather interesting how people find moral failings in others based merely basesd on when those other people were born. There isn't some sky god who snuck a bunch of factory rejects for the Baby Boomer generation. It's the same people as any other generation.

      If you were born during that era, then you probably would have exhibited the same attitude, failings, and successes.

    4. Re:That was pre-Boomer America. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Economically, children started to make less than their parents at the same age after the Boomers made theirs.

      As I noted, it isn't the fault of the Boomers that there are seven billion people on the planet. The declining premium commanded by developed world labor is not their fault, but just a reality of expanding the global economy to include everyone on Earth.

      Politically speaking, Boomers overall are more liberal, and are the ones who voted for Big Government. They're the ones who sided with unions, pushed environmentalism, affirmative action, etc. They tell themselves they were "helping" the world, but in reality they made it worse.

      All of those things came before Boomers were even born.

      Yet they almost always point their fingers at other usually younger people. It's the lazy kids for not working hard enough or figuring out how to compete with third world labor. It's the damn workers pushing up the cost of business. It's the other people who voted wrong ("I hate Congress, but my guy's doing great"). etc.

      Again how does this differ from anyone else?

      About the only thing that I think is accurate here is your assertion that Baby Boomers had a big role in building the current society. There's much wrong with it. I find it more useful to fix what's wrong rather than blame some abstract generation for it.

    5. Re:That was pre-Boomer America. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'd start looking for someone to blame by looking in the mirror.

      A Boomer supporter refusing to accept any blame? Color me unsurprised.

      As opposed to a Boomer blamer?

      Where did GP say Boomers created 7 billion people or globalism? Where did GP even say 7 billion people and globalism were problems? Strawman bro. Strawman.

      Not at all. A lot of the alleged Boomer faults are actually due to this significant dynamic.

      Not fully, but mostly. It wasn't the young adults who passed legislation for government to back those loans, or heavily regulate the markets and enforce minimum wage so companies can't just hire unskilled students without degrees for cheap, or gamed the political system to put charlatans on the ballot and giving them and only them media coverage, for example.

      Well, it wasn't the Boomers either. Passing legislation is the purview of a legislature. And as for Boomers supporting politicians with bad policies - I see nothing to distinguish their bad judgment from the people who came before or after.

  9. Re:That's Great by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    Not really sure what any of what you just said had to do with what I was saying. Good attempt to paint what I said into something political when it was in fact not. I am a firm believer that we should be spending more on nasa, a good 5X-10X more than what we do.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  10. The Playzer by GeoSanDiego · · Score: 1

    By golly if we can put a laser for communicating in space we should be able to put a laser for communicating on a cell phone!

    I give you: http://theplayzer.com/

  11. Re:That's Great by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Ah, just to clarify - the space race was most definitely a military endeavor. We show off our state-of-the-art ICBM technology (carrying a human payload into space) to the Russians, they do the same to us. Rinse and repeat until the Soviet Union imploded, at which point both space programs lost their military importance, and with it most of their funding.

    It made for great PR films, but the people that cared about science, exploration, and pushing the boundaries of human accomplishment were always riding on the coat tails of the military. Once that stopped being possible it was really only the usefulness of satellites that kept us in space at all. They pay for the launch, and we mostly make do with whatever science we can squeeze in while we're up there.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  12. and some will take over the laser asking 1 million by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    after I destroy Washington D.C... I will destroy another major city every hour on the hour. That is, unless, of course, you pay me... one million dollars

  13. Re:this is "news"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It isn't unusual to see argue their point by appealing to a work of fiction, such as Randians making references to Atlas Shrugged, but I think this is a first for me to see someone argue a point by appealing to I Dream of Jeanie!

  14. Re:That's Great by cusco · · Score: 2

    That's always been a cute fairy tale put forward by the Pentagon fantasy factory, but it's never been true. The military assisted in the space race, especially in the beginning when they had the only functional launchers, but the necessities of space exploration quickly surpassed the really rather primitive needs of the military. The Apollo 1 booster was already larger and more powerful than any ICBM would ever need to be, and took so long to assemble, prep and fuel that it could never be useful as a weapon. The Pentagon never needed a booster powerful enough to send a 700 kilo spacecraft to the edge of interplanetary space, much less send two spacecraft and an electric car to the moon, nor did the Kremlin.

    Von Braun and Korolev worked on military projects during the first part of their because that was the only way they could get funding. They achieved their greatest accomplishments working on the civilian programs. Von Braun made no secret that the Moon had always been his goal, and Korolev upbraided a Kremlin general that wanted to usurp some of his funding by telling him, "These rockets are much more important to our future than your missiles."

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  15. Good to know that... by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

    ...porn will be readily available on the Moon and beyond and we can always take a troll through deep space.

  16. gbic by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    What happens when you have to replace the gbic-equivalent on the moon???

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.