Spun, what he said was that he "could hurt him". That's potentially true, on this website, he can, in public reputation - but Zed already pretty much blew that away himself, didn't he?
pudge, you should have cut off your responses in this thread a while back, and you know it.
That doesn't seem to stop idiots from bringing lawsuits, unfortunately.
I'm enjoying this thread (it reminds me of lots of inter-company/skill-field spats I've seen or been a participant in, and personally I'm on your side) but I'm not sure I would have brought it up on my own company's web site forum. It's, well, crass.
Much better to respond to him on his own, er, hunting ground. Hah.:)
When was the last time you saw anything in the space program really thought out and executed that had a payoff in a generation or two, as opposed to within the next 5 to 10 years?
Well, Hubble has and did, and perhaps a few other programs. But your point is well made; and I don't think our government is ever going to become less risk-adverse. For most elected officials it's not about doing the best for the most people anymore. The CYA attitude has truly become a national icon. Our grandkids will start to pay the true price for that.:(
Regarding your last comment: our government couldn't have successfully laid wild fears on it's population without retaliation unless our population was already so ignorant that those fears would be believed. (oh, wait...). Therefore it really doesn't matter anymore, does it... and perhaps that could be used in reverse: "*insert deadly terrorist/country here* is building a program to bring one of those asteroids down on your head, and we have to build our own program in order to stop them and place the asteroid somewhere where the people of earth are safe from it, blah, blah (and companies X and Y profit from it)..." *grin*
When I was lots younger, our country landed two men on the moon. Granted the reasons for doing it weren't pure in any sense; but we still DID IT. I have a bad feeling that we're never going to do it again, even tho it's EASIER now.:(
nice talking to you & don't stop dreaming about what could be:)
We need a motivation. In the past, this has almost always been for one of two reasons: 1) Profit. 2) Beat our competition to it so we don't look weak.
Sometimes in the past groups of humans have done "crazy" things in the name of survival, as well.:)
Number 1 is a pretty hard sell at the moment because we don't really have a clue how to monetize space yet. Some rich people are beginning to take those risks for various reasons, and hopefully something will fall out of that. Don't expect people to be seriously considering bringing in trillion dollar asteroids to NEO to mine though.
For your first point, I'd say we already have monetized "space" - communications. The real problem is we don't have efficient and inexpensive high-volume launch systems that can handle cargo, crew, or both in significant amounts to do more than comm sats. This is a solvable problem however, without inventing new technologies.
As to trillion dollar NEAs, why not? Many if not most of them are likely to be old comets without a lot of heavy metals, but if we could find one that had high concentrations of heavy metals, we're likely only talking about a 100-150m diameter rock. It might take a generation or two to bring it in, but we could do it with existing technology.
If we had really good tracking abilities (radar installations spread along Earth's orbit and large arrays of multiple optic and radar scopes in orbit, which really wouldn't cost that much) there's no reason why we couldn't find one in an easy to alter orbit and bring it in. If we were successful it's not like it's going to go away, we'd have all the time we need to exploit it's resources. The experience in doing so, even with just automated or remote-controlled devices, would benefit everyone on the planet.
Number 2 hasn't been a motivation for a while. The few players in this arena who can field whole space programs themselves don't view each other as competitors, nor do they view failing to make it to the next milestone first as a defeat in any sense. If China proves out a full, impressive space program which looks like it might be a military or economic threat to the West, then perhaps we will see something. Until then, I wouldn't count on this as a motivator either.
Straight risk-taking isn't really an option for governments right now either, especially Western ones, due to monetary concerns (like shoveling billions into various police actions.) This leaves us basically with billionaires that have a lot of time on their hands to bring down the cost so that governments, which ultimately are most likely to take those risks, will be able to justify the cost of doing so. So if you want to see space really done right, support those companies and persons who are working to make it cheap.
There I agree, with one caveat; if we ever do face an "immediate" impact threat without preparation, it's likely it's going to take government sized-monies to counter it, and their populations are going to demand that they do... so it's in the governments interest (if it has any) to make sure it can.*:)
* assuming rational government policy, hah.
Personally, I'd like to see Paul Allen fund a nice sized telescope array for searching for NEAs (and perhaps help keep Arecibo alive, as well)... I wrote to him about it but never received a response.
Yes. The shuttle is the first "space truck" every built. Considering the complexity of the systems and problems and the fact that the whole program was underfunded pretty much from day one, it's amazing what they've accomplished and how few people we've lost. Now we need the funding and real cross-administration political will to do something even better, but we aren't going to get it anytime soon, because there are too many people who have little understanding of what it costs to explore a new frontier. A shame. It's a good thing many of our ancestors didn't seem to share that view.
What do you consider "instant on"? The GE 13w CFs ($4 each a few months ago) I have in my tracklights are at full brightness in less than a second, not long enough for me to care about any difference over the 1/10th second or so I can perceive.
I do agree with your point about this change being harder on poorer people, however. In one of the apartment complexes I maintain we just got done with a three year program of changing over 30 year old light fixtures to more modern fixtures; unfortunately, at least two of the models we changed over to don't have the physical dimensions to accommodate even the smaller size CFs.
So in addition to us probably having to change these fixtures out again long before their rated lifetime (and throw them in a landfill because they are now worth nothing), we're going to have to replace all the existing bulbs, eventually, with CF, probably at our cost, and in addition a considerable number of fixtures - probably within five years or so, right? These costs inevitably end up getting handed right back to the tenants (mostly college students and single/small families in our case), with administrative embellishments along the way. But... it was HUD who mandated (and funded to some part) our upgrade to the new fixtures in the first place. Do you see where I'm coming from?*
There can't even be a "grandfather clause" to this, as the old standard base incandescants apparently will just no longer be available. At all. Merchandiser sharks will jump all over this.
*Guess what? We're HUD and Rural Development funded, as well - guess where that "end user" cost will get recycled to?
Sheesh.
Really? then why do most CFL's get hot enough to be painful? EVERY SINGLE CFL in my home is at least 150 degrees at the ballast, bulb base.
I thought that seemed awful high, so I checked mine; the three 13w GE CFs in the computer room tracklight are 98F, 104F, and 102F respectively at the top vent holes. Not bad considering they're in small cheap cans pointing downwards. Probably due to the design and quality of the electronics package in the base.
Slashdot Mirror
Good grief, get a room, you two. ;)
...
:*)
Spun, what he said was that he "could hurt him". That's potentially true, on this website, he can, in public reputation - but Zed already pretty much blew that away himself, didn't he?
pudge, you should have cut off your responses in this thread a while back, and you know it.
Ok, go ahead and ban me now...
damn kids, get off my, er, your lawn, uh...
tic!lock
That doesn't seem to stop idiots from bringing lawsuits, unfortunately.
:)
I'm enjoying this thread (it reminds me of lots of inter-company/skill-field spats I've seen or been a participant in, and personally I'm on your side) but I'm not sure I would have brought it up on my own company's web site forum. It's, well, crass.
Much better to respond to him on his own, er, hunting ground. Hah.
tic!lock
(not really new here)
When was the last time you saw anything in the space program really thought out and executed that had a payoff in a generation or two, as opposed to within the next 5 to 10 years?
:(
:(
:)
Well, Hubble has and did, and perhaps a few other programs. But your point is well made; and I don't think our government is ever going to become less risk-adverse. For most elected officials it's not about doing the best for the most people anymore. The CYA attitude has truly become a national icon. Our grandkids will start to pay the true price for that.
Regarding your last comment: our government couldn't have successfully laid wild fears on it's population without retaliation unless our population was already so ignorant that those fears would be believed. (oh, wait...). Therefore it really doesn't matter anymore, does it... and perhaps that could be used in reverse: "*insert deadly terrorist/country here* is building a program to bring one of those asteroids down on your head, and we have to build our own program in order to stop them and place the asteroid somewhere where the people of earth are safe from it, blah, blah (and companies X and Y profit from it)..." *grin*
When I was lots younger, our country landed two men on the moon. Granted the reasons for doing it weren't pure in any sense; but we still DID IT. I have a bad feeling that we're never going to do it again, even tho it's EASIER now.
nice talking to you & don't stop dreaming about what could be
tic!lock
Coupons for vaporware? ;)
We need a motivation. In the past, this has almost always been for one of two reasons:
:)
:)
1) Profit.
2) Beat our competition to it so we don't look weak.
Sometimes in the past groups of humans have done "crazy" things in the name of survival, as well.
Number 1 is a pretty hard sell at the moment because we don't really have a clue how to monetize space yet. Some rich people are beginning to take those risks for various reasons, and hopefully something will fall out of that. Don't expect people to be seriously considering bringing in trillion dollar asteroids to NEO to mine though.
For your first point, I'd say we already have monetized "space" - communications. The real problem is we don't have efficient and inexpensive high-volume launch systems that can handle cargo, crew, or both in significant amounts to do more than comm sats. This is a solvable problem however, without inventing new technologies.
As to trillion dollar NEAs, why not? Many if not most of them are likely to be old comets without a lot of heavy metals, but if we could find one that had high concentrations of heavy metals, we're likely only talking about a 100-150m diameter rock. It might take a generation or two to bring it in, but we could do it with existing technology.
If we had really good tracking abilities (radar installations spread along Earth's orbit and large arrays of multiple optic and radar scopes in orbit, which really wouldn't cost that much) there's no reason why we couldn't find one in an easy to alter orbit and bring it in. If we were successful it's not like it's going to go away, we'd have all the time we need to exploit it's resources. The experience in doing so, even with just automated or remote-controlled devices, would benefit everyone on the planet.
Number 2 hasn't been a motivation for a while. The few players in this arena who can field whole space programs themselves don't view each other as competitors, nor do they view failing to make it to the next milestone first as a defeat in any sense. If China proves out a full, impressive space program which looks like it might be a military or economic threat to the West, then perhaps we will see something. Until then, I wouldn't count on this as a motivator either.
Straight risk-taking isn't really an option for governments right now either, especially Western ones, due to monetary concerns (like shoveling billions into various police actions.) This leaves us basically with billionaires that have a lot of time on their hands to bring down the cost so that governments, which ultimately are most likely to take those risks, will be able to justify the cost of doing so. So if you want to see space really done right, support those companies and persons who are working to make it cheap.
There I agree, with one caveat; if we ever do face an "immediate" impact threat without preparation, it's likely it's going to take government sized-monies to counter it, and their populations are going to demand that they do... so it's in the governments interest (if it has any) to make sure it can.*
* assuming rational government policy, hah.
Personally, I'd like to see Paul Allen fund a nice sized telescope array for searching for NEAs (and perhaps help keep Arecibo alive, as well)... I wrote to him about it but never received a response.
Yes. The shuttle is the first "space truck" every built. Considering the complexity of the systems and problems and the fact that the whole program was underfunded pretty much from day one, it's amazing what they've accomplished and how few people we've lost. Now we need the funding and real cross-administration political will to do something even better, but we aren't going to get it anytime soon, because there are too many people who have little understanding of what it costs to explore a new frontier. A shame. It's a good thing many of our ancestors didn't seem to share that view.
Nah, it's from Khan. He keeps missing his target.
Or instead of one giant penguin robot, a herd of small self-reproducing penguin robots.
How about a digital stethoscope you can hook to a generic flat screen color LCD for data analysis? tick!lock
Perhaps, but large rocks thrown by brawny types probably works just as well, and it's cheaper ;)(
tic
What do you consider "instant on"? The GE 13w CFs ($4 each a few months ago) I have in my tracklights are at full brightness in less than a second, not long enough for me to care about any difference over the 1/10th second or so I can perceive.
I do agree with your point about this change being harder on poorer people, however. In one of the apartment complexes I maintain we just got done with a three year program of changing over 30 year old light fixtures to more modern fixtures; unfortunately, at least two of the models we changed over to don't have the physical dimensions to accommodate even the smaller size CFs.
So in addition to us probably having to change these fixtures out again long before their rated lifetime (and throw them in a landfill because they are now worth nothing), we're going to have to replace all the existing bulbs, eventually, with CF, probably at our cost, and in addition a considerable number of fixtures - probably within five years or so, right? These costs inevitably end up getting handed right back to the tenants (mostly college students and single/small families in our case), with administrative embellishments along the way. But... it was HUD who mandated (and funded to some part) our upgrade to the new fixtures in the first place. Do you see where I'm coming from?*
There can't even be a "grandfather clause" to this, as the old standard base incandescants apparently will just no longer be available. At all. Merchandiser sharks will jump all over this.
*Guess what? We're HUD and Rural Development funded, as well - guess where that "end user" cost will get recycled to?
Sheesh.
Really? then why do most CFL's get hot enough to be painful? EVERY SINGLE CFL in my home is at least 150 degrees at the ballast, bulb base.
I thought that seemed awful high, so I checked mine; the three 13w GE CFs in the computer room tracklight are 98F, 104F, and 102F respectively at the top vent holes. Not bad considering they're in small cheap cans pointing downwards. Probably due to the design and quality of the electronics package in the base.
tic