Easy solution: The parasail. Parasails were developed for the now scuttled ISS lifeboat (as well as for sport, most skydivers use a parasail) Parasails allow you to have low level manuverability while being contained in a very tight package. If nasa just used a parasail/capsule combo, youd get essentially the same functionality as the shuttle but with much more redundancy and reliability.
China basically took on the mindset that people who wanted what China had to offer, they better come to China, because China didn't need or want to go elsewhere for what they needed or wanted.
Well europe is generally hard to take over completely, but im saying that colonies ala shanghai & hong knong could have been established in europe by the chinese, putting them in the position of power rather than the other way around
X-34 was a money pit. Single Stage to Orbit is not possible with current engine and constriction technology. In order for the x-34 to function it would have to carry 100 kg fo fuel for every 8 kg of ship carried into orbit. That includes the engines, tanks people and cargo. Not to mention that the x-34 fell victim to nasas "all up" development process. Instead of developing each technology seperately and integrating it into an already existing vehicle, they try to develop all the technology simultaneously and integrate it simultaneously into one vehicle. If one tech fails or cant be developed the whole program fails.
Re:America needs to rethink some priorities
on
NASA's New Space Wheels
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Europe is not the problem. We launched deep Space 1 with an ion engine in 1998. The chinese are the problem. They are going to blindside the rest of the world when they launch people into space in october. Not to mention that as the chinese economically grow they will pass the economic power of the US, and so become the next superpower. Look for a space race between china and india. Remember that during the early 1400's the chinese almost discovered europe. The chinese explorer Cheng-ho had fleets of hundreds of ships with ~30,000 soldiers and sailors on board. They got as far as somalia in africa. Why did they stop? The emperor ordered the ships burned and the logs destroyed. The chinese learned what happenens if youre the first to colonize another area with superior technology, and they arent about to make the same mistake twice, it cost them 600 years and boundless pain and stuffing since they were colonized instead of the other way around. in 1400 the chinese had superior tech and superior numbers, they could have easily colonized europe and any other place they landed.
Imagine the fare on this taxi (and their "luggage" going in a separate one).
Dont think taxi, think 747 vs Freight train. When a freight train crashes, it usually doesnt make the news unless there was something toxic on board or somone gets hurt. Theres a much lower margin of safety on a freight train so cargo can be hauled much more cheaply on a freight train than on a 747. You can also haul alot more freight on a freight train. But freight trains are slow, so people want to go by plane instead of train. In the case of space transportation, anything that humans have to fly on has to be tested more and has to have higher margins of safety than something thats only going to be rated for freight. More testing and more engineering means more expensive. And the bigger and more xcomplex the vehicle the more expensive it gets. So the space shuttle costs hundreds of millions to refurbish. What makes the news: Space shuttle blowing up or unmanned rocket blowing up? Unmanned rockets blow up alot more often than the space shuttle does, but they are cheaper to launch. So if you launch cargo along with humans you essentially have to certify the whole vehicle, including the cargo for human spaceflight (you cant have thse stuff in your cargo bay blowing up either) If you seperate out the two, even if you use expendible boosters, you can launch more cargo for less cost than if you launch both together. You wouldnt try to move a piano with a taxi, but if you want to get crosstown in a hurry you take one.
What you need to understand is that the media like to portray things in black and white so that "consumers" can understand it. Bacon Bad! makes a beetter headline than "Scientists have shown that bacon in excessive quantities can be bad" And of course bacon in small or moderate quantities can have good effec ts. So the media switches to "BACON GOOD!" when they really should be saying " Scientists have shown that small quantities of bacon in a diet are beneficial, while large quantities are still bad for you" Bacon good is just easier fof the media to say.
Has anyone at TSA ever heard of checks and balancces? Judicaial Oversight? What hapens if somone is classified a RED and denied transportation? What if its the CEO of a multimillion dollar company who was born in the US and happens to be a muslim of arabic decent? My question is: How do I get off the list if ive been wrongly flagged or worse, If I have the same name as somone who has been correctly flagged not to travel? This has already hapened with the current system. Apparently somone with a name like "bob Thomas" was tagged as a terrorist, but they only go with what their name is, so even though "bob Thomas" was a "5'9 white male with brown hair" They were pullig over black people and asian people because their name was BOB THOMAS not because they matched his description.
The government needs to flag people whose name is Mohammad bin Mohammad,
What if my name is Cassius Clay, but I want everyone to call me Mohammed Ali? Or what if my official name is Richard Reed but my terrorist friends know me as Asheet M'Drurz?
Youre using the either-or logical fallacy. Its not an either or proposition. If we explore space, it doesnt mean we are prevented from fixing the planet we are on. if we fix the planet were on it doesnt mean we cant explore space. In fact the amount of money we spend onfossil fuel subsidies is more than the amount we spend on exploring space, so we could save the planet and spend _LESS_ money. At any rate, you should want to explore space because what if we cant save the planet? Isnt it good to have a backup plan?
Now, if you still feel the need to prove how little fear you have, please signup for Fear-Factor so we can isolate you into the reckless dumb-ass category
Well personally I think that fear factor doesnt prove that youre brave, it only proves that youre greedy and stupid. No one has died on fear factor and no one (hopefully) is going to die. If somone does die on fear factor, what have they accomplished? nothing. If somone dies exploring space, you can legitimately say that their life has served a purpose to advance the human race. Im talking about facing fear in advancement of humanity, not facing fear so you can win 50k. One is noble, one is greedy stupidity.
So youre saying we shouldnt put humans in space beecause its dangerous? There must be some mutation in your genes that makes you afraid, because if your ancestors had that gene we would still be stuck in africa wondering whats over the next mountain. How many resourcees were spent traveling from africa to australia? From africa to the mid east? from the mid east to europe, asia and the americas? How many people died from new diseases, new dangers, new predators? How many human beings died from the cold of the ice ages? Thousands? Millions? As a percentage of the total human population at the time it must have been significant. And youre saying because weve lost 17 humans on our quest to move into space we should stop because its dangerous? There is only one reason needed to use humans in space: So we can make it an environment for humans to live in. Europeans settlers came to america searching for gold, what they got was tobacco, timber and furs, and ultimately made alot more money that way. We dont know what we might find in space, or what the economic benifits might be. Humans are needed in space because humans want to live in space, just as humans wanted to live in the mid east, asia, europe and north and south america.
If the federal government persists in the behaviours that it has been engaging in lately, all that they'll do is force people who care to either leave the U.S., or to engage in rebellion.
250 million * 40 years Of course, if you look at the rate of increase, its 50 million for the first year, 200 million for the second year, so at that rate of increase it would take 3 years before the total funding is > $10 billion. Likely funding levels would range somewhere between these two extremes if NASA were serious about such a plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy solution: The parasail. Parasails were developed for the now scuttled ISS lifeboat (as well as for sport, most skydivers use a parasail) Parasails allow you to have low level manuverability while being contained in a very tight package. If nasa just used a parasail/capsule combo, youd get essentially the same functionality as the shuttle but with much more redundancy and reliability.
Reminds me of america today (sigh)
Well europe is generally hard to take over completely, but im saying that colonies ala shanghai & hong knong could have been established in europe by the chinese, putting them in the position of power rather than the other way around
The shuttle was designed in the 70's. Nasa needs to remember the 60's and 50's if it wants to keep it simple.
X-34 was a money pit. Single Stage to Orbit is not possible with current engine and constriction technology. In order for the x-34 to function it would have to carry 100 kg fo fuel for every 8 kg of ship carried into orbit. That includes the engines, tanks people and cargo. Not to mention that the x-34 fell victim to nasas "all up" development process. Instead of developing each technology seperately and integrating it into an already existing vehicle, they try to develop all the technology simultaneously and integrate it simultaneously into one vehicle. If one tech fails or cant be developed the whole program fails.
Europe is not the problem. We launched deep Space 1 with an ion engine in 1998. The chinese are the problem. They are going to blindside the rest of the world when they launch people into space in october. Not to mention that as the chinese economically grow they will pass the economic power of the US, and so become the next superpower. Look for a space race between china and india. Remember that during the early 1400's the chinese almost discovered europe. The chinese explorer Cheng-ho had fleets of hundreds of ships with ~30,000 soldiers and sailors on board. They got as far as somalia in africa. Why did they stop? The emperor ordered the ships burned and the logs destroyed. The chinese learned what happenens if youre the first to colonize another area with superior technology, and they arent about to make the same mistake twice, it cost them 600 years and boundless pain and stuffing since they were colonized instead of the other way around. in 1400 the chinese had superior tech and superior numbers, they could have easily colonized europe and any other place they landed.
Dont think taxi, think 747 vs Freight train. When a freight train crashes, it usually doesnt make the news unless there was something toxic on board or somone gets hurt. Theres a much lower margin of safety on a freight train so cargo can be hauled much more cheaply on a freight train than on a 747. You can also haul alot more freight on a freight train. But freight trains are slow, so people want to go by plane instead of train. In the case of space transportation, anything that humans have to fly on has to be tested more and has to have higher margins of safety than something thats only going to be rated for freight. More testing and more engineering means more expensive. And the bigger and more xcomplex the vehicle the more expensive it gets. So the space shuttle costs hundreds of millions to refurbish. What makes the news: Space shuttle blowing up or unmanned rocket blowing up? Unmanned rockets blow up alot more often than the space shuttle does, but they are cheaper to launch. So if you launch cargo along with humans you essentially have to certify the whole vehicle, including the cargo for human spaceflight (you cant have thse stuff in your cargo bay blowing up either) If you seperate out the two, even if you use expendible boosters, you can launch more cargo for less cost than if you launch both together. You wouldnt try to move a piano with a taxi, but if you want to get crosstown in a hurry you take one.
Why not have slashdot mirror his site? Slashdot can obviously withstand a ddos attack, heck we have a ddos attack named after us.
Because remember, if you use Windows, the terrorists have already won. (its a feature, not a bug)
I say faeces occurs.
What you need to understand is that the media like to portray things in black and white so that "consumers" can understand it. Bacon Bad! makes a beetter headline than "Scientists have shown that bacon in excessive quantities can be bad" And of course bacon in small or moderate quantities can have good effec ts. So the media switches to "BACON GOOD!" when they really should be saying " Scientists have shown that small quantities of bacon in a diet are beneficial, while large quantities are still bad for you" Bacon good is just easier fof the media to say.
damn you you beat me to it!
Duh, thats why apple died years ago. Oh wait...
Has anyone at TSA ever heard of checks and balancces? Judicaial Oversight? What hapens if somone is classified a RED and denied transportation? What if its the CEO of a multimillion dollar company who was born in the US and happens to be a muslim of arabic decent? My question is: How do I get off the list if ive been wrongly flagged or worse, If I have the same name as somone who has been correctly flagged not to travel? This has already hapened with the current system. Apparently somone with a name like "bob Thomas" was tagged as a terrorist, but they only go with what their name is, so even though "bob Thomas" was a "5'9 white male with brown hair" They were pullig over black people and asian people because their name was BOB THOMAS not because they matched his description.
What if my name is Cassius Clay, but I want everyone to call me Mohammed Ali? Or what if my official name is Richard Reed but my terrorist friends know me as Asheet M'Drurz?
Actually I'd wager dollars to donuts that theyre AOL Cd's. Now you too can destroy AOL CD's at the subatomic level!
Its even less than thatanyone can stand on a street corner and speak all they want! Who cares if everyone thinks youre crazy?
I can raed, but where is Raed?
Youre using the either-or logical fallacy. Its not an either or proposition. If we explore space, it doesnt mean we are prevented from fixing the planet we are on. if we fix the planet were on it doesnt mean we cant explore space. In fact the amount of money we spend onfossil fuel subsidies is more than the amount we spend on exploring space, so we could save the planet and spend _LESS_ money. At any rate, you should want to explore space because what if we cant save the planet? Isnt it good to have a backup plan?
Well personally I think that fear factor doesnt prove that youre brave, it only proves that youre greedy and stupid. No one has died on fear factor and no one (hopefully) is going to die. If somone does die on fear factor, what have they accomplished? nothing. If somone dies exploring space, you can legitimately say that their life has served a purpose to advance the human race. Im talking about facing fear in advancement of humanity, not facing fear so you can win 50k. One is noble, one is greedy stupidity.
So youre saying we shouldnt put humans in space beecause its dangerous? There must be some mutation in your genes that makes you afraid, because if your ancestors had that gene we would still be stuck in africa wondering whats over the next mountain. How many resourcees were spent traveling from africa to australia? From africa to the mid east? from the mid east to europe, asia and the americas? How many people died from new diseases, new dangers, new predators? How many human beings died from the cold of the ice ages? Thousands? Millions? As a percentage of the total human population at the time it must have been significant. And youre saying because weve lost 17 humans on our quest to move into space we should stop because its dangerous? There is only one reason needed to use humans in space: So we can make it an environment for humans to live in. Europeans settlers came to america searching for gold, what they got was tobacco, timber and furs, and ultimately made alot more money that way. We dont know what we might find in space, or what the economic benifits might be. Humans are needed in space because humans want to live in space, just as humans wanted to live in the mid east, asia, europe and north and south america.
In the US, you go into politics, in soviet russia, politics goes into you!
See Sig \/
250 million * 40 years Of course, if you look at the rate of increase, its 50 million for the first year, 200 million for the second year, so at that rate of increase it would take 3 years before the total funding is > $10 billion. Likely funding levels would range somewhere between these two extremes if NASA were serious about such a plan.
To Quote homer simpson: " When will people learn? Democracy doesnt work!"