Would it not be an option to send robotic construction workers to the site ahead of time to begin construction of the shelter? Or, send two separate ships, one that just has cargo on board? That way, the ship that carries the people would need to carry less, and therefor the weight that would be allocated to kit could be allocated to slightly thicker walls. But, in typical Slashdot fashion, I'm just putting forth something that seems reasonable, substituting what I believe to be common sense for the engineering degree that I don't have.
This was NASA's plan. They wanted to have a lunar base prepared for astronauts. A cleared landing site, and oxygen production from lunar rock and soil.
From what I remember of, I think it was his books, he assumed that the Vacuum of interstellar space would be harder (less gas), enabling higher speeds with solar-sails/ram scoops (Asimov?).
How does it stop? If it accelerates tangentially to the Earth's orbit, which is still the most efficient way to get to another planet, then it can decelerate by tilting the sail the other way. In each case, the acceleration vector will have a component outwards from the Sun;
As the photons are reflected, and not just absorbed, angling the sail will give you thrust at another angle. Also, until you attain escape velocity, turning the sail to 90 deg will decelerate you to 0 eventually. As I understand it, any orbit should be attainable.
When I went to school, we were taught some of the earlier theories of evolution. Such as the work of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
So, yes, the only alternate theories to the modern theory were mentioned.
I don't know what you are talking about RE:
My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory.
I don't recall being invited to discuss or criticise any basic maths, science or art class topic. Certainly we were discouraged to chat in class, and encouraged to work. There were a few team projects.
I've always thought it strange when a religious person wants to debate against science. It seems pretty clear the various theories have no bearing on their fideism. For example, some are adamant the world is 6000 yrs old and will rant about it endlessly. Should you actually convince them this is wrong (or they study geology and they work it out for themselves) they remain religious. So why argue if it is irrelevant to them?
It's probably fair to say that many westerners believe in (FOS) Freedom of Speech. This includes drawings.
Many of us therefore find it highly offensive when others try to censor us.
you say:
Please don't coerce us to accept what you find okay according to your beliefs or principles.
You may be offended if you wish. You may complain. Draw insulting pictures of our parents if it makes you feel better. Many of us would fight for your right to do so.
But censor us? No.
Attempting to censor us is a gross offence, and yet you wish to do so.
Death threats are worse, and illegal in some countries, murder is crime in all western countries, and yet those who call themselves islamic have done so.
So no, you who will cause great offence so wilfully do not deserve respect and sacrifice for any your many bizarre beliefs.
You ask us to live by this belief of yours, when you will not agree to live by the belief in FOS, not to mention the many thousands of beliefs of many thousands of other religions, or philosophies or preferences that people have in this large world.
As so many beliefs are incompatible, the only possible solution for different people to live together is to learn tolerance.
If you do not believe in FOS, then do not speak. If you do not wish to hear the free words of others, then do not listen.
Please do not persecute and oppress us.
Having said that, there is censorship in all countries. Sometimes, sadly at the whim of a politician, such as when "The life of Brian" was banned in NC by a Senator who's wife was told by a friend that it was offensive. More often censorship is used to placate intolerant voters.
- I can tolerate anything except intolerance!
Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others. --
John F Kennedy
It it the opposite. Only large corporations can afford them. They are prone to failure and only useful for a short distance, in a particular type of race.
They are useless for most applications. They are very high spec, high tech you could say.
On the other extreme are the traditional London taxis, which are built with low spec materials, including wood, and are good for a million miles of driving.
They are cheap to drive/maintain. Simple. Reliable.
For a re-usable first stage engine, you would want more of a London taxi style of engine, less of a shuttle engine, which are so expensive to build and maintain.
Yes, you would need more fuel, and it would be larger, but fuel is cheap, and cost has more to do with the number of parts than the size of the parts.
You have forgotten to consider the costs of not converting to metric.
This forces you to have two systems. workshops have to have a set of imperial tools and a set of metric.
You lose sales to other countries who can't be bothered with your backward machines.
Expensive mistakes (some famous) are made when you aren't sure which units you should be using.
Are you sure you can afford not to give up imperial?
> So yes, continuous usage of an ion thruster will ruin the micro gee environment, and yes
> this will be a great disruption to experiments onboard.
How would an ion thruster that is carefully counterbalancing the braking force of atmospheric friction ruin the Micro-G environment? With the atmospheric braking force cancelled out the station should be able to stay nicely in orbit and provide a rather stable Micro-G environment.
Yes, that's what I would have said.
I see you are currently modded 0. Funny thing, that's what I always get when I post;-)
Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)? Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans. Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.
In other words: FAIL!
When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science. That was science that inspired millions, and from the sci-fi movies of the 70's, I'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ("Andromeda Strain", for one example. Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call "Sci-fi"). Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.
Actually, the only reason Musk started SpaceX was to further his dreams of puting a greenhouse on Mars. He got the idea of starting SpaceX after he failed to purchase a private launch from the Russians.
Now, I don't think he dreamt of financing any manned projects himself, but he wanted to influence people in that direction. Cheaper launches will help. Your dreams are not likely to be met with billion dollar launches.
Christians, for the most part, don't rape young boys, so stop lumping them all together. According to Wikipedia, 76% of the US population identifies as Christian. Do you really believe that 76% of Christians rape young boys? Yes, it does happen sometimes. When it comes to light, though, those responsible have been brought to justice. That hasn't happened yet for Scientology's crimes.
Ridiculous.
What percentage of young boy rape was done by the Catholic church? This is the relevant question.
Then there is: What percentage of crimes come to light?
He admitted we would do the same given a chance.
He knew then nature of the competition when he entered.
I don't just mean the rules, but the motivations of the organisers as well.
He has no valid reason to publicly complain.
I can understand him *feeling* like he was robbed, that's only natural human nature. He's been expecting to win since the last competition.
NASA was just following the Bush Directive. "Go to Mars".
Having a man stand on Mars is not that exciting.
I was more excited by the interesting rover designs Nasa had come up with.
The In-situ resource utilisation has potential. A technology worth developing.
Basically, what is interesting/inspiring is increasing our capabilities.
This is what I would like to see NASA focus on. I was very pleased to see the Augustine panel suggest that Nasa forget Mars/Moon for now, and focus on the tech for longer duration manned space missions.
They actually thought about things. They promoted the Shuttle derived heavy lift, which, apparently would be so cheap to develop, you'd have to be insane not to do it.
They promoted in-orbit refueling stations.
After that the United Launch Alliance put out plans to support these objectives, that had a lot of engineering work and imagination put into them.
I hadn't seen so much imagination and rational planning in many years.
Fantastic stuff!
It is now time for NASA to consider all these events, and come up with a plan. That is what these committees are for.
There are some big questions. What should NASA do, and what should they contract off to the ULA/spacex etc.
Another obvious project would be extra-solar-system probes using VASIMR engines.
- I am so thankful for Dr Chang-diaz
I'm looking forward to see how it works out on the ISS orbit keeping project.
My dad was on The Everest expedition. The Sherpa porters went barefoot. Rock, Ice, heavy load. Once he saw a Sherpa sewing a callous back onto his foot that had come off. No fun hiking on rock without a callous!
You are suggesting that you cannot be judged by your past actions?
No. We should be judged for our use of nuclear weapons. I never implied otherwise.
I quoted the implication.
That the past has no bearing on the future?
Of course it has bearing. But you've made no argument as to why our use of nuclear weapons in the past makes us more likely to use them in the future.
The reason why we were the only country to use nukes in an offensive manner, is because there was a very short window of time between the invention of nuclear weapons and the advent of MAD. Nobody else really had the chance.
There have been various wars since then without the risk of MAD, as in all of them no more than one side had nukes.
My argument? That your past actions suggest what you will do in a given situation.
My complaint is that you say rediculous things.
Funny considering you're the only country who has actually used them in a war.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how likely we are to use them now.
You are suggesting that you cannot be judged by your past actions? That the past has no bearing on the future?
I wonder how does it work over in lala land.
The Aztecs farmed their neihbors as a meat source. The Spaniards accidently killed huge numbers with disease. It only realy needs one man to do that.
However, The Spaniards were mainly interested in gold, then Cocoa beans, then silver IIRC.
So, (assuming you refer to those wierd US gallons) one brake == 38ml of petrol?
Sweet!
Regen braking has several converions, each dropping eff (==>30% effective?).
= Engine eff x convertor eff x Battery store eff x battery release eff x convertor eff x engine eff.
For the racing brake-regen being planned, they are going to store mechanically in centrifuges (70% effective!).
Harsh.
I assume you are not a scientist on any kind?
I also assume you have never actually looked for information on the popular models? There are several.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it not be an option to send robotic construction workers to the site ahead of time to begin construction of the shelter? Or, send two separate ships, one that just has cargo on board? That way, the ship that carries the people would need to carry less, and therefor the weight that would be allocated to kit could be allocated to slightly thicker walls. But, in typical Slashdot fashion, I'm just putting forth something that seems reasonable, substituting what I believe to be common sense for the engineering degree that I don't have.
This was NASA's plan. They wanted to have a lunar base prepared for astronauts. A cleared landing site, and oxygen production from lunar rock and soil.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05273_moon_dirt.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/may/HQ_05128_Centennial_Challenge.html
Also perhaps some base assembly, with the robotic capabilities of the ATHlete rover
http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11
and the Robonaut
http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp
The latest estimate for the Yucca waste storage project (currently cancelled) is $90b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
Any accidents, such as oil spills, can make unexpected increases to the cost.
Then of course there's carbon credit cost for coal/oil.
The only coal power plant in NZ, Huntly is probably going to close. Carbon credits have just come in.
The NZ power companies have been investing in wind and geothermal in recent years instead.
The opposite is true however.
How does it stop? If it accelerates tangentially to the Earth's orbit, which is still the most efficient way to get to another planet, then it can decelerate by tilting the sail the other way. In each case, the acceleration vector will have a component outwards from the Sun;
As the photons are reflected, and not just absorbed, angling the sail will give you thrust at another angle. Also, until you attain escape velocity, turning the sail to 90 deg will decelerate you to 0 eventually. As I understand it, any orbit should be attainable.
No doubt about it. He is actually doing things, and not just stealing other ppl's work or using that money to make their name.
Not just that, but he has invested all his own remaining money, which inspires other investors: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/05/musk-says-i-ran-out-of-cash/
I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is.
Well, logically I suppose it means you start off with faith in science? No need to question the Scientific Method!
I can only assume that when they teach the Ancient History of ID, they amuse the students by scrutinising it with the rigours of Science.
My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory.
I don't recall being invited to discuss or criticise any basic maths, science or art class topic. Certainly we were discouraged to chat in class, and encouraged to work. There were a few team projects.
I've always thought it strange when a religious person wants to debate against science. It seems pretty clear the various theories have no bearing on their fideism. For example, some are adamant the world is 6000 yrs old and will rant about it endlessly. Should you actually convince them this is wrong (or they study geology and they work it out for themselves) they remain religious. So why argue if it is irrelevant to them?
It's probably fair to say that many westerners believe in (FOS) Freedom of Speech. This includes drawings.
Many of us therefore find it highly offensive when others try to censor us.
you say:
Please don't coerce us to accept what you find okay according to your beliefs or principles.
You may be offended if you wish. You may complain. Draw insulting pictures of our parents if it makes you feel better. Many of us would fight for your right to do so. But censor us? No.
Attempting to censor us is a gross offence, and yet you wish to do so. Death threats are worse, and illegal in some countries, murder is crime in all western countries, and yet those who call themselves islamic have done so.
So no, you who will cause great offence so wilfully do not deserve respect and sacrifice for any your many bizarre beliefs.
You ask us to live by this belief of yours, when you will not agree to live by the belief in FOS, not to mention the many thousands of beliefs of many thousands of other religions, or philosophies or preferences that people have in this large world.
As so many beliefs are incompatible, the only possible solution for different people to live together is to learn tolerance.
If you do not believe in FOS, then do not speak. If you do not wish to hear the free words of others, then do not listen.
Please do not persecute and oppress us.
Having said that, there is censorship in all countries. Sometimes, sadly at the whim of a politician, such as when "The life of Brian" was banned in NC by a Senator who's wife was told by a friend that it was offensive. More often censorship is used to placate intolerant voters.
- I can tolerate anything except intolerance!
Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others. -- John F Kennedy
I'm going to assume you are trolling, because nobody but a bigot could really think those ideas are good.
You have failed to read what he said correctly
He began with: "An interesting thought experiment"
This means he is not puting forward his own views. He is inviting you to consider alternate points of views.
His paragraphs ended with "?"s. He was asking for criticism/discussion of the ideas.
Please learn to read.
It it the opposite. Only large corporations can afford them. They are prone to failure and only useful for a short distance, in a particular type of race. They are useless for most applications. They are very high spec, high tech you could say.
On the other extreme are the traditional London taxis, which are built with low spec materials, including wood, and are good for a million miles of driving. They are cheap to drive/maintain. Simple. Reliable.
For a re-usable first stage engine, you would want more of a London taxi style of engine, less of a shuttle engine, which are so expensive to build and maintain. Yes, you would need more fuel, and it would be larger, but fuel is cheap, and cost has more to do with the number of parts than the size of the parts.
You have forgotten to consider the costs of not converting to metric. This forces you to have two systems. workshops have to have a set of imperial tools and a set of metric. You lose sales to other countries who can't be bothered with your backward machines. Expensive mistakes (some famous) are made when you aren't sure which units you should be using. Are you sure you can afford not to give up imperial?
> So yes, continuous usage of an ion thruster will ruin the micro gee environment, and yes > this will be a great disruption to experiments onboard.
How would an ion thruster that is carefully counterbalancing the braking force of atmospheric friction ruin the Micro-G environment? With the atmospheric braking force cancelled out the station should be able to stay nicely in orbit and provide a rather stable Micro-G environment.
Yes, that's what I would have said. I see you are currently modded 0. Funny thing, that's what I always get when I post ;-)
But they will want power, and metal "maybe".
Power? They might use us as batteries! Oh noes! But perhaps they can simulate a pleasant world for our brains?
Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)? Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans. Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.
In other words: FAIL!
When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science. That was science that inspired millions, and from the sci-fi movies of the 70's, I'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ("Andromeda Strain", for one example. Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call "Sci-fi"). Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.
Actually, the only reason Musk started SpaceX was to further his dreams of puting a greenhouse on Mars. He got the idea of starting SpaceX after he failed to purchase a private launch from the Russians. Now, I don't think he dreamt of financing any manned projects himself, but he wanted to influence people in that direction. Cheaper launches will help. Your dreams are not likely to be met with billion dollar launches.
no famous wines!? Penfolds Grange Shiraz is very famous, and is.. one of the most expensive new wines you can buy.
Christians, for the most part, don't rape young boys, so stop lumping them all together. According to Wikipedia, 76% of the US population identifies as Christian. Do you really believe that 76% of Christians rape young boys? Yes, it does happen sometimes. When it comes to light, though, those responsible have been brought to justice. That hasn't happened yet for Scientology's crimes.
Ridiculous. What percentage of young boy rape was done by the Catholic church? This is the relevant question. Then there is: What percentage of crimes come to light?
He admitted we would do the same given a chance. He knew then nature of the competition when he entered. I don't just mean the rules, but the motivations of the organisers as well. He has no valid reason to publicly complain. I can understand him *feeling* like he was robbed, that's only natural human nature. He's been expecting to win since the last competition.
NASA was just following the Bush Directive. "Go to Mars".
Having a man stand on Mars is not that exciting.
I was more excited by the interesting rover designs Nasa had come up with. The In-situ resource utilisation has potential. A technology worth developing.
Basically, what is interesting/inspiring is increasing our capabilities.
This is what I would like to see NASA focus on. I was very pleased to see the Augustine panel suggest that Nasa forget Mars/Moon for now, and focus on the tech for longer duration manned space missions.
They actually thought about things. They promoted the Shuttle derived heavy lift, which, apparently would be so cheap to develop, you'd have to be insane not to do it. They promoted in-orbit refueling stations.
After that the United Launch Alliance put out plans to support these objectives, that had a lot of engineering work and imagination put into them. I hadn't seen so much imagination and rational planning in many years.
Fantastic stuff!
It is now time for NASA to consider all these events, and come up with a plan. That is what these committees are for. There are some big questions. What should NASA do, and what should they contract off to the ULA/spacex etc.
Another obvious project would be extra-solar-system probes using VASIMR engines.
- I am so thankful for Dr Chang-diaz
I'm looking forward to see how it works out on the ISS orbit keeping project.
My dad was on The Everest expedition. The Sherpa porters went barefoot. Rock, Ice, heavy load. Once he saw a Sherpa sewing a callous back onto his foot that had come off. No fun hiking on rock without a callous!
You are suggesting that you cannot be judged by your past actions?
No. We should be judged for our use of nuclear weapons. I never implied otherwise.
I quoted the implication.
That the past has no bearing on the future?
Of course it has bearing. But you've made no argument as to why our use of nuclear weapons in the past makes us more likely to use them in the future.
The reason why we were the only country to use nukes in an offensive manner, is because there was a very short window of time between the invention of nuclear weapons and the advent of MAD. Nobody else really had the chance.
There have been various wars since then without the risk of MAD, as in all of them no more than one side had nukes. My argument? That your past actions suggest what you will do in a given situation. My complaint is that you say rediculous things.
Funny considering you're the only country who has actually used them in a war.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how likely we are to use them now.
You are suggesting that you cannot be judged by your past actions? That the past has no bearing on the future? I wonder how does it work over in lala land.
The Aztecs farmed their neihbors as a meat source. The Spaniards accidently killed huge numbers with disease. It only realy needs one man to do that. However, The Spaniards were mainly interested in gold, then Cocoa beans, then silver IIRC.
I've been dying to get to say one of these ;-)
So, (assuming you refer to those wierd US gallons) one brake == 38ml of petrol? Sweet! Regen braking has several converions, each dropping eff (==>30% effective?). = Engine eff x convertor eff x Battery store eff x battery release eff x convertor eff x engine eff. For the racing brake-regen being planned, they are going to store mechanically in centrifuges (70% effective!).
Harsh. I assume you are not a scientist on any kind? I also assume you have never actually looked for information on the popular models? There are several.