At that distance from the star, the planet will have done a good job clearing the inner system out of stray material in eccentric orbits - which means that any inner planets might have evolved without large chunks of rock dropping out of the sky at inconvenient times. One of the problems with life is that it doesn't like cometary impacts - if a Jupiter-like planet is out there gobbling material up before it can do damage, the chances of life must be better.
And of course it shows that the solar system is not unique in having large planets on the outer rim, until now almost all of the planets in other systems had been massive and VERY close to their Sun.
Now remember, we don't shoot the Eridanans on sight.
Of course what is being discussed is a tiny fraction of the cost of the manned space programme which seems to be comprised of Shuttle stunt missions to keep the voters happy and putting a very large tin can up in low orbit for long-duration stunts.
It's time that the manned space programme was abandoned, it achieves next to nothing for science and almost all of the jobs could be done by unmanned platforms.
Throwing away the best part of a billion dollars to launch the Shuttle each time is not the best use of NASA's money. If Congress wants to take away NASA's money, let the Shuttle they imposed on NASA be the victim.
Well that's my opinion from the UK. Mind you, our space budget probably couldn't pay to take the Shuttle through a car wash.
Good point there styopa, although it has to be asked whether this is a deliberate design on the part of the Russians. They have always had trouble building big engines and have needed far more of them to get the same thrust. For instance, their N1 Moon rocket had 30 (!) engines on its first stage (Saturn V had 5 and launched more weight). Problems with the N1's engine control software caused at least one of the launch failures that lead to the scrapping of the programme.
The Russian system has much to recommend it thought - simple construction, standard parts honed to perfection over hundreds of launches, non-cryogenic fuels and most importantly of all, dedicated and brilliant engineers. I sometimes think that we in the West concentrate far too much on the gee-whizz side of rocket science rather than building stuff that works.
It's a development of a 1960s ICBM design from the Chelomei consortium. The two-stage ICBM was originally designed to carry up to 100MT warheads to the USA. However it was never deployed and Proton became the heavy lift launcher for the USSR. It's name comes from a series of heavy scientific satellites that were its first payloads in 1965. Proton uses nitrogen tetraoxide and dimethyl hydrazine as fuel and does not need cryogenic storage like most US and European rockets. The rocket has three stages for orbital launches. The first has 6 RD-253 producing a total of 8.45 meganewtons of thrust for just over 2 minutes. The second stage, containing 4 RD-0210 engines then fires for 3 and a half minutes producing 2.11 meganewtons. Finally the third stage fires for a further 4 minutes using a single RD-0210 engine to produce 556 kilonewtons. Proton has been used in the past to launch the Salyut and Mir stations, the Mars73 missions and the Venera Venus landers. Proton is now built by Krunichev State Research and Production Center in Moscow and is railed to the launch site in Kazakhstan. The reliability of Proton is about 98% Best wishes, Mike.
Friedo wrote: Patents exist to protect our intellectual property. Naturally, you should not be able to patent almost snything, because that would then broaden and obfuscate (the already obfuscated) debate about what constitutes intellectual property. If you invent something new, you have the right to claim that technology so nobody else can "steal" your intellectual property, in much the same way that you can copyright written text.
The problem with using patents with genetics is that no one can claim to have 'invented' the gene for chocolatiness (my term - I'm sure Nature wouldn't accept it). Mars (in this case) isolated a gene that is a fluke of evolution - its not the same thing at all.
If patents are to be granted on life forms it could freeze the developing nations of the World out of the market for their own biodiversity. Most of the World's lifeforms are found in the Tropics where many of the poorest countries are sited. We're already seeing Western biotech companies patenting genes and therapies based on plants and animals found in developing nations. none of the money goes back to these countries or even to protecting their environment.
It's time the patenting of organisms and their genes was banned. The biotech companeis got into the market without the protection of patents, let's see them survive without them. As the UK government used to say when it was selling us something we already owned 'The values of your shares may go down as well as up'. Besides, if it means that companies as corrupt and arrogant as Monsanto and Novartis go to the wall all the better.
More immediately on the cocoa issue, the WTO should immediately review its policies on the export of cocoa products. At the Uruguay Round of talks, the tarriffs on raw cocoa were dropped to almost nothing (not a problem for the West which doesn't produce cocoa), but those on processed cocoa were kept at a high level. As a result, the producing countries have to pay high tarriffs when exporting chocolate and chocolate products to the Western markets; their products can't compete and the cocoa producers can't get a share of these high-value markets for chocolate.
Slashdot Mirror
At that distance from the star, the planet will have done a good job clearing the inner system out of stray material in eccentric orbits - which means that any inner planets might have evolved without large chunks of rock dropping out of the sky at inconvenient times. One of the problems with life is that it doesn't like cometary impacts - if a Jupiter-like planet is out there gobbling material up before it can do damage, the chances of life must be better.
And of course it shows that the solar system is not unique in having large planets on the outer rim, until now almost all of the planets in other systems had been massive and VERY close to their Sun.
Now remember, we don't shoot the Eridanans on sight.
Best wishes,
Mike.
It's time that the manned space programme was abandoned, it achieves next to nothing for science and almost all of the jobs could be done by unmanned platforms.
Throwing away the best part of a billion dollars to launch the Shuttle each time is not the best use of NASA's money. If Congress wants to take away NASA's money, let the Shuttle they imposed on NASA be the victim.
Well that's my opinion from the UK. Mind you, our space budget probably couldn't pay to take the Shuttle through a car wash.
Best wishes,
Mike.
The Russian system has much to recommend it thought - simple construction, standard parts honed to perfection over hundreds of launches, non-cryogenic fuels and most importantly of all, dedicated and brilliant engineers. I sometimes think that we in the West concentrate far too much on the gee-whizz side of rocket science rather than building stuff that works.
Best wishes,
Mike.
It's a development of a 1960s ICBM design from the Chelomei consortium. The two-stage ICBM was originally designed to carry up to 100MT warheads to the USA. However it was never deployed and Proton became the heavy lift launcher for the USSR. It's name comes from a series of heavy scientific satellites that were its first payloads in 1965. Proton uses nitrogen tetraoxide and dimethyl hydrazine as fuel and does not need cryogenic storage like most US and European rockets. The rocket has three stages for orbital launches. The first has 6 RD-253 producing a total of 8.45 meganewtons of thrust for just over 2 minutes. The second stage, containing 4 RD-0210 engines then fires for 3 and a half minutes producing 2.11 meganewtons. Finally the third stage fires for a further 4 minutes using a single RD-0210 engine to produce 556 kilonewtons. Proton has been used in the past to launch the Salyut and Mir stations, the Mars73 missions and the Venera Venus landers. Proton is now built by Krunichev State Research and Production Center in Moscow and is railed to the launch site in Kazakhstan. The reliability of Proton is about 98% Best wishes, Mike.
Patents exist to protect our intellectual property. Naturally, you should not be able to patent almost snything, because that would then broaden and obfuscate (the already obfuscated) debate about what constitutes intellectual property. If you invent something new, you have the right to claim that technology so nobody else can "steal" your intellectual property, in much the same way that you can copyright written text.
The problem with using patents with genetics is that no one can claim to have 'invented' the gene for chocolatiness (my term - I'm sure Nature wouldn't accept it). Mars (in this case) isolated a gene that is a fluke of evolution - its not the same thing at all.
If patents are to be granted on life forms it could freeze the developing nations of the World out of the market for their own biodiversity. Most of the World's lifeforms are found in the Tropics where many of the poorest countries are sited. We're already seeing Western biotech companies patenting genes and therapies based on plants and animals found in developing nations. none of the money goes back to these countries or even to protecting their environment.
It's time the patenting of organisms and their genes was banned. The biotech companeis got into the market without the protection of patents, let's see them survive without them. As the UK government used to say when it was selling us something we already owned 'The values of your shares may go down as well as up'. Besides, if it means that companies as corrupt and arrogant as Monsanto and Novartis go to the wall all the better.
More immediately on the cocoa issue, the WTO should immediately review its policies on the export of cocoa products. At the Uruguay Round of talks, the tarriffs on raw cocoa were dropped to almost nothing (not a problem for the West which doesn't produce cocoa), but those on processed cocoa were kept at a high level. As a result, the producing countries have to pay high tarriffs when exporting chocolate and chocolate products to the Western markets; their products can't compete and the cocoa producers can't get a share of these high-value markets for chocolate.
Best wishes,
Mike.