...the billionaire talked [about] sending a spaceship into orbit that launches and lands vertically, like a rocket, and eventually building spaceships that can orbit the Earth
So the plan is to launch ships into orbit before building ships that can orbit? This doesn't seem wise.
Somebody needs to work on his article writing skills.
It's really too bad people have stopped thinking about the words they use and instead choose to parrot phrases they've misheard elsewhere. Oh well. I guess that's why they're working for the subway system.
And what makes you think this violates the second law?
Read TFP instead of TF National Geographic article. There's no mention of any violation of the second law anywhere. Several other laws, sure, but not the second.
Why would any young person go into science or technology if this is the way they treat people?
For a lot of students of science (myself included--physics here), it's not about fame, money, bitches, or a steady job. It's about knowledge and about increasing humans' understanding of the universe around us by standing on the shoulders of the giants of science who came before us.
Science will never make me money. There are about a dozen rich physicists in the world. I don't expect to become one of them. I've always told people that I'd rather live a refrigerator box whilst understanding the quantum mechanical structure of the energy which makes up its cardboard than have a "real" job that makes me a six figure salary while forcing me to work in a cubicle, never thinking for myself and always filing my TPS reports on time with cover sheets. Screw that. I'll take intimate knowledge of the fabric of spacetime over that any day, job or no.
Sure, it's too bad JPL is laying people off. I'm always sorry to see the sciences hurt, especially whilst watching the United States spend money I think could be invested more wisely in its future, but to answer your question, if you're getting into science because you think it'll make you money or because you expect it to provide you a steady job, please move on to something else. We need passion for knowledge, not for stable income.
Actually, singular they has a usage history going back at least to Shakespeare...
Then again, if posters were writing in Shakepearian English, we'd probably all have a lot more complaints than just its vs it's.
Seriously, though, thanks for that link. I learned a few new things. Personally, I am absolutely in favour of the language having proper gender neutral pronouns and I'm not against the continued evolution of the language (unlike my mother, who thinks there's some magic point in history where it was supposed to stop changing). That Wikipedia article goes a long way toward legitimising they/their as that pronoun at least in some cases.
Nice point about the split infinitives as well. I was aware that that was a much more recently and arbitrarily invented rule, and I oft make attempts to brazenly break it.
Feel free to point out any errors I make though, as I am trying to develop better habits.
Since you asked...
If you understand what the originally writer was trying to express, then they have succeeded.
If we're being pedantic, which I've obviously established I can be, "they" is a third person plural pronoun, and you've attached it to a singular subject, "the writer."
Unfortunately, English lacks an appropriate neuter pronoun, and so in the name of political correctness, this misuse of the plural pronoun has come into common usage to avoid the non-PC (but technically correct) "his" (which is technically the neuter pronoun in English) or the more unwieldy "his or her."
Sorry. My mommy was an English teacher. I can't help it.
I just don't think I can justify $200,000 on it. This is the part where I complain about "the man" using his money and influence to keep the little guy out of the history books.
I think that's an overly pessimistic interpretation. The fact is it ain't cheap to develop the technology necessary to do this, so the ticket doesn't seem unreasonably priced to me. Out of the reach of most, sure, but not unreasonable given the R&D costs.
But here's the thing... It won't always be that way. It is because there are people out there who can spend $200,000 on a roller coaster ride that you will be able to do it for $20,000 in 10 years and $2,000 in 20 years.
I am very lucky to be in the position to be able to afford this. But I'm not just doing this for me. I'm doing this because I know that it's this initial outlay of cash from those who can that will open the field up to so many more people in the future. I want everybody who wants to go to space to have that opportunity, and so I'm glad to help lay the groundwork for more affordable space travel in the future.
So I don't think The Man is using his money to keep you out of the history books (and I hate the thought that you might be lumping me in with The Man--trust me, I ain't). I think there are a lot of people involved with this project who are very excited about it and who want this kind of adventure to be available to as many people as possible at as reasonable a price as possible.
A real company? There is demand for going into space for people with the financial resources, but do you really believe this will happen in the next 5-10 years?
Virgin is still on track to begin commercial launches in 2008. Obviously it's too early to predict with any great deal of accuracy the realism of this estimate, but so far things are going very well for them.
They've got plans on the drawing board (which, amusingly enough, considering the humorous post higher in this thread, do include a LCD screen for every seat, but of course it's for telemetry, not for inflight movies). They've received the necessary clearances from the US government to begin their work, and the first drawings of SpaceShipTwo are complete.
Space travel and ship design aren't easy, but don't underestimate Burt Rutan and Richard Branson. Many have before.
Are you willing to take a rollercoaster ride into space in a damn kite with a rocket strapped to it?
Yes. No question. There are few things for which I'm willing to put my life at risk, and being one of the first 1000 people in human history to escape the atmosphere is absolutely one of them. I obviously don't want to die, but it's a chance I'm willing to take.
Read my journal entries for my ongoing process of relieving myself of a great deal of cash for this opportunity to die.
The simple fact is that you can re-enter the atmosphere with little or no heating... all you have to do is SLOW DOWN!
Close, but not entirely true.
An orbiting object's energy is one half kinetic energy, one half potential energy, and so slowing down to zero orbital speed relative to the atmosphere still leaves you with 50% of your energy to burn off.
So to a first approximation, slowing down reduces your heat by only 50%. You've still got to deal with what's left. If you can at that point manage to fall into the atmosphere very slowly instead of ballistically, you'll give yourself more time to burn off the energy, but of course this again brings up the problem you mention of needing the fuel to do it.
Deposits are fully refundable and are guaranteed by the parent company.
Specifically, from Article 4 of Virgin's Deposit Terms and Conditions:
4.1 Refunds Requested Prior to Confirmation Notice. Customer may request a refund of the Deposit at any time prior to the date of delivery of the Confirmation Notice. Any such request shall be in a writing delivered to Virgin Galactic in accordance with Section 6.2 of this Agreement. As soon as practicable and in no event later than six (6) months from the date of Virgin Galactic's receipt of a timely notice delivered pursuant to this Section 4.1, Virgin Galactic shall refund the entire amount of the Deposit to Customer.
Yep, they've got six months to give the money back, but they do guarantee they will.
Why? How many terrorists are prepared to spend $200,000 to take out a few space tourists when they can eviscerate the US economy with 20 coach class tickets?
Virgin, of course, does have sufficient information on all the people who've made deposits that they could run a pretty thorough background check. They say that "Conditions of Carriage" are forthcoming, so perhaps there will be a no terrorists clause in it somewhere.
They've said all along that every seat will be a window seat. There's no way they could collect $200,000 per passenger and then stick people in the middle.
I'm curious, though, how the seating layout is going to look. They're saying nine person craft, which means two crew and seven passengers. How exactly do you give seven passengers a window seat? Perhaps three rows of two and then a tapered tail where one lucky passenger gets windows on both sides?
Do you really think NASA would deliberately subject itself to press misinterpretations and public vitriol the likes of which they're seeing?
No, it's just you.
The simple fact is that this is all the result of the increased scrutiny afforded by new monitoring systems, and NASA's new openness about information is in fact a PR nightmare. This only shows off the new, safer NASA to the people who actually understand what NASA is saying, and that is sadly a minority of the press and an even smaller minority of the public.
Unknown at this point what will be allowed, but you can be pretty sure they'll be more than happy to provide a keepsake DVD afterwards. Watch them charge $69.95 for it, too.
u paid 200,000 for a trip that will last a few minutes. you better justify that.
I did justify it. I told you I knew what I was paying for and it was worth it to me. What other justification is necessary?
My point to the naysayers is that Virgin, while good at PR hype, isn't misrepresenting this and they're making the people who are seriously interested fully aware of what they're doing and how they're progressing. To the people like me who think it's worth it, it's worth it. Nuff said.
The naysayers can say what they want, but those of who are actually involved and actually paying for tickets are fully apprised of what the spaceship is, where it's going, and for how long.
It's been my dream ever since I knew space existed to get there, and since I can afford it, $200,000 for a few minutes there is worth it to me.
No, this isn't controlled orbital insertion, but it is still a flight into space, hence spaceflight, and flights like these are a vital first step toward getting real civilian orbital travel working, and I'll be first in line for that, too. If I have any money left, that is.
You guys can whine about ballistic space travel not being real spaceflight all you want. I know what it is, I have no doubts about its value to me, and I'm going for a ride on a rocketship!
Slashdot Mirror
...the billionaire talked [about] sending a spaceship into orbit that launches and lands vertically, like a rocket, and eventually building spaceships that can orbit the Earth
So the plan is to launch ships into orbit before building ships that can orbit? This doesn't seem wise.
Somebody needs to work on his article writing skills.
And "it's" is not a possessive pronoun.
I thought it was "I before E except after C"??
:)
Christ I'm an idiot. Is my face red? Of course it is after C...
...the FTC recieved 1.4 million complaints, the biggest category of do-not-call violations ever recieved.
That's "receive." Remember the "except after E" part?
It's really too bad people have stopped thinking about the words they use and instead choose to parrot phrases they've misheard elsewhere. Oh well. I guess that's why they're working for the subway system.
And what makes you think this violates the second law?
Read TFP instead of TF National Geographic article. There's no mention of any violation of the second law anywhere. Several other laws, sure, but not the second.
Why would any young person go into science or technology if this is the way they treat people?
For a lot of students of science (myself included--physics here), it's not about fame, money, bitches, or a steady job. It's about knowledge and about increasing humans' understanding of the universe around us by standing on the shoulders of the giants of science who came before us.
Science will never make me money. There are about a dozen rich physicists in the world. I don't expect to become one of them. I've always told people that I'd rather live a refrigerator box whilst understanding the quantum mechanical structure of the energy which makes up its cardboard than have a "real" job that makes me a six figure salary while forcing me to work in a cubicle, never thinking for myself and always filing my TPS reports on time with cover sheets. Screw that. I'll take intimate knowledge of the fabric of spacetime over that any day, job or no.
Sure, it's too bad JPL is laying people off. I'm always sorry to see the sciences hurt, especially whilst watching the United States spend money I think could be invested more wisely in its future, but to answer your question, if you're getting into science because you think it'll make you money or because you expect it to provide you a steady job, please move on to something else. We need passion for knowledge, not for stable income.
Actually, singular they has a usage history going back at least to Shakespeare...
Then again, if posters were writing in Shakepearian English, we'd probably all have a lot more complaints than just its vs it's.
Seriously, though, thanks for that link. I learned a few new things. Personally, I am absolutely in favour of the language having proper gender neutral pronouns and I'm not against the continued evolution of the language (unlike my mother, who thinks there's some magic point in history where it was supposed to stop changing). That Wikipedia article goes a long way toward legitimising they/their as that pronoun at least in some cases.
Nice point about the split infinitives as well. I was aware that that was a much more recently and arbitrarily invented rule, and I oft make attempts to brazenly break it.
Christ. Is my face red? I said "his" and "his or her" when I meant to say "he" and "he or she." I've switched possessive on myself. Mea culpa.
Feel free to point out any errors I make though, as I am trying to develop better habits.
Since you asked...
If you understand what the originally writer was trying to express, then they have succeeded.
If we're being pedantic, which I've obviously established I can be, "they" is a third person plural pronoun, and you've attached it to a singular subject, "the writer."
Unfortunately, English lacks an appropriate neuter pronoun, and so in the name of political correctness, this misuse of the plural pronoun has come into common usage to avoid the non-PC (but technically correct) "his" (which is technically the neuter pronoun in English) or the more unwieldy "his or her."
Sorry. My mommy was an English teacher. I can't help it.
"The problem appears to be that Tenable Network Security... isn't making money because it's competition is simply repackaging their product."
It's means "it is." Possessive pronouns in English do not have apostrophes (with the unfortunate exception of one's). You meant to say its.
See Wikipedia.
Whoa, calm down there. I was being sarcastic.
Don't worry. I got it. Just didn't say so.
I just don't think I can justify $200,000 on it. This is the part where I complain about "the man" using his money and influence to keep the little guy out of the history books.
I think that's an overly pessimistic interpretation. The fact is it ain't cheap to develop the technology necessary to do this, so the ticket doesn't seem unreasonably priced to me. Out of the reach of most, sure, but not unreasonable given the R&D costs.
But here's the thing... It won't always be that way. It is because there are people out there who can spend $200,000 on a roller coaster ride that you will be able to do it for $20,000 in 10 years and $2,000 in 20 years.
I am very lucky to be in the position to be able to afford this. But I'm not just doing this for me. I'm doing this because I know that it's this initial outlay of cash from those who can that will open the field up to so many more people in the future. I want everybody who wants to go to space to have that opportunity, and so I'm glad to help lay the groundwork for more affordable space travel in the future.
So I don't think The Man is using his money to keep you out of the history books (and I hate the thought that you might be lumping me in with The Man--trust me, I ain't). I think there are a lot of people involved with this project who are very excited about it and who want this kind of adventure to be available to as many people as possible at as reasonable a price as possible.
A real company? There is demand for going into space for people with the financial resources, but do you really believe this will happen in the next 5-10 years?
Virgin is still on track to begin commercial launches in 2008. Obviously it's too early to predict with any great deal of accuracy the realism of this estimate, but so far things are going very well for them.
They've got plans on the drawing board (which, amusingly enough, considering the humorous post higher in this thread, do include a LCD screen for every seat, but of course it's for telemetry, not for inflight movies). They've received the necessary clearances from the US government to begin their work, and the first drawings of SpaceShipTwo are complete.
Space travel and ship design aren't easy, but don't underestimate Burt Rutan and Richard Branson. Many have before.
Are you willing to take a rollercoaster ride into space in a damn kite with a rocket strapped to it?
Yes. No question. There are few things for which I'm willing to put my life at risk, and being one of the first 1000 people in human history to escape the atmosphere is absolutely one of them. I obviously don't want to die, but it's a chance I'm willing to take.
Read my journal entries for my ongoing process of relieving myself of a great deal of cash for this opportunity to die.
If my email system designer were satisfied with almost nine hours of downtime per year, I'd find a new designer.
The simple fact is that you can re-enter the atmosphere with little or no heating ... all you have to do is SLOW DOWN!
Close, but not entirely true.
An orbiting object's energy is one half kinetic energy, one half potential energy, and so slowing down to zero orbital speed relative to the atmosphere still leaves you with 50% of your energy to burn off.
So to a first approximation, slowing down reduces your heat by only 50%. You've still got to deal with what's left. If you can at that point manage to fall into the atmosphere very slowly instead of ballistically, you'll give yourself more time to burn off the energy, but of course this again brings up the problem you mention of needing the fuel to do it.
Except that plans call for both a pilot and a copilot. I'm thinking more like:
Specifically, from Article 4 of Virgin's Deposit Terms and Conditions:
Yep, they've got six months to give the money back, but they do guarantee they will.
Why? How many terrorists are prepared to spend $200,000 to take out a few space tourists when they can eviscerate the US economy with 20 coach class tickets?
Virgin, of course, does have sufficient information on all the people who've made deposits that they could run a pretty thorough background check. They say that "Conditions of Carriage" are forthcoming, so perhaps there will be a no terrorists clause in it somewhere.
They've said all along that every seat will be a window seat. There's no way they could collect $200,000 per passenger and then stick people in the middle.
I'm curious, though, how the seating layout is going to look. They're saying nine person craft, which means two crew and seven passengers. How exactly do you give seven passengers a window seat? Perhaps three rows of two and then a tapered tail where one lucky passenger gets windows on both sides?
Do you really think NASA would deliberately subject itself to press misinterpretations and public vitriol the likes of which they're seeing?
No, it's just you.
The simple fact is that this is all the result of the increased scrutiny afforded by new monitoring systems, and NASA's new openness about information is in fact a PR nightmare. This only shows off the new, safer NASA to the people who actually understand what NASA is saying, and that is sadly a minority of the press and an even smaller minority of the public.
From a gravitational standpoint, Discovery is parked on top of a very, very big hill, so by your analogy they should be just fine.
Unknown at this point what will be allowed, but you can be pretty sure they'll be more than happy to provide a keepsake DVD afterwards. Watch them charge $69.95 for it, too.
u paid 200,000 for a trip that will last a few minutes. you better justify that.
I did justify it. I told you I knew what I was paying for and it was worth it to me. What other justification is necessary?
My point to the naysayers is that Virgin, while good at PR hype, isn't misrepresenting this and they're making the people who are seriously interested fully aware of what they're doing and how they're progressing. To the people like me who think it's worth it, it's worth it. Nuff said.
Virgin's already got my deposit. I'm going.
The naysayers can say what they want, but those of who are actually involved and actually paying for tickets are fully apprised of what the spaceship is, where it's going, and for how long.
It's been my dream ever since I knew space existed to get there, and since I can afford it, $200,000 for a few minutes there is worth it to me.
No, this isn't controlled orbital insertion, but it is still a flight into space, hence spaceflight, and flights like these are a vital first step toward getting real civilian orbital travel working, and I'll be first in line for that, too. If I have any money left, that is.
You guys can whine about ballistic space travel not being real spaceflight all you want. I know what it is, I have no doubts about its value to me, and I'm going for a ride on a rocketship!