What do you mean by "more efficient" ways of space travel? Let's investigate your ideas one by one : (a) Research New Propulsion systems : And to go where? Propulsion systems technology is driven by need, and if you don't plan to go anywhere, there is no need. So no new systems. (b) Building Waystations in Orbit : This is one of those "myth" ideas that perpertuated by too much science fiction. Waystations in orbit are stupid : you waste fuel getting into an orbit instead of just flying straight to your target. Now, you say (ala Armageddon), we can "refuel" there. But then how the hell does the fuel gets there in the first place? Answer : you fly them there, and that takes MORE fuel. It's easy to show (mathematically) that costs more (basically, rockets scale up favourably : the bigger they are, the cheaper they get per kg payload). So go do some maths. (c) Building Lunar Refueling station : That's another science fiction myth. Do you know it's CHEAPER (i.e. smaller rocket) to land something on Mars than to land something on the Moon? Crazy? No : mars has an atmosphere to aerobreak a probe. Moon does not. I know : I spent a month doing calculations in a feasability study on a "Cheap Lunar Lander" mission. Going to the Moon to refuel is like going to New York to refuel on a trip from Chicago to Los Angeles. (d) Repair Facilities : In space, you don't "repair" something : you replace them. It's WAAY cheaper to be redundant in components than to build elaborate facilities to repair things....without knowing what things/spare parts/equipment to stock because you don't know what's going to fail. (e)Water stations for Fusion Reactors : Water has H and O inside, and H2O2 (Hydrogen Peroxide) is standard rocket fuel. But you need FISSION reactors to get H and O out, NOT Fusion Reactors. And you don't need Water Stations : you need water extractors : and they already exist. My professor once told me that people who think that they can "plan everything ahead", and do all the groundwork before pushing the "magic button" and elaborate things will happen is going never going to be successful. Because research is a trial and error procedure. So There!
A year back, Rotary was the first with a prototype and a successful testflight.
I always like Rotary and their wacky but workable idea. (Rotating the combustion chamber using the centrifugal force as compressors, thus saving weight by chucking the massive turbopumps).
It's sad that the demise of Iridium had brought so many great ideas to a halt.
I HATE NASA I HATE DAN GOLDIN! It's all politics.
Lockheed-Martin is the Micro$oft of the space industry. It's just sad that there is no "grassroots" to combat this monopoly.
(Conestoga is another launch vehicle that is cool, cheap and not-politically connected, which means it died a painful death.)
They did not change methods, methinks. They are reacting to the Defendant's method of making the trial into a techno-trial instead of a civil-trial. Which is to the Defendant's advantage of course since it has the entire techno-geek brainpower behind them.
Why does people like MPAA/RIAA and whatever **AA still try to hold on to the oxymoronic DMCA? It's the DIGITAL MILLENIUM from Chrissake! Copyright is DEAD!
For a few short decades, when the so-called "intellectual property" can only be produced by factories, artists (sic) make more money than they deserved. But the artists are not the only problem : it's the marketeers and recording studios and the managers etc who made obscene amount of money off the artists. I don't believe they (artists, managers and the lot) deserved the kind of money they make. 50M for some stupid jingle? Come on!
(Cut to oft-quoted inflated price of CDs, and the oft-quoted costs of "promotion").
So the internet came, saw, conquered. The 'intellectual property' is now back to what it really is : plain old information. Communication technology has rendered the artificially inflated business model of the "artists" obsolete.
With legislation like "DMCA", the recording/movie industry "fights back" by making the act of using modern technology illegal. Which is stupid : once the technology is there, people will use it. Legislation or not.
Now, I hear people(mostly the **AA types) saying that this "threaten" the livelihood of artists and the industry blah blah blah and it is unprecedented. The fact is that the software making industry has already long been "threatened"! Does the software industry collapse under incessant piracy?! Is Microsoft still around?!
So, win or lose, the DMCA is obsolete the first day it was made into law. And people will know eventually. Instead the **AA types should consider instead :
(a) Change the business model. Make the originals worth a lot more than copies. How? Putting in goodies. Maybe the artists' signature. Or improved packaging. Or (even better) some special offer off for the next guy's concert. Or a million other things. The caveat is that the industry has to put in more effort. But for the money they earned : they SHOULD.
(b) Lower prices. They already make inflated amount of money. I don't believe they deserve it. Technology will level the playing field.
Instead, the **AA types put money into lawyers (using the money that CONSUMERS has paid them of course) to betray the consumers.
Yes neutrinos (baryons) are RH and anti-neutrinos (anti-baryons) are LH, guess my parenthesis is not so clear but at least it's in the right (pun intended) order!
The mass density of the Universe only states whether :
(a) There is a Big Bang/no Big Bang..... (b) There is a Big Crunch/No Big Crunch (c) The universe is open/close (different from b) *(d) an a possible, with some fudging, a universe that is "idling" (i.e. spend a lot of time in some state)
Whether or not the universe has a "series" of BB or BC depends on the magnitude of the Cosmological constant and the exact curvature of space (which we now think is flat, which precludes the "oscillating: model).
It all depends on how we defined SM I guess. You are correct on all points. Let me clarify my points :
"SM" is broken. I presume the original article means SM is wrong. We believed it is wrong. But it is not "broken" it the way you state it. Your "broken SM" actually is "Spontaneously Broken Symmetry" (or Phase Transition), which is easily accomadated by the SM (via the Higgs mechanism etc etc.)
Also, massive neutrino is not Death to SM. SM can easily _accomodate_ (the emphasis) the existence of mass in neutrinos. Basically, neutrinos are believed to be either RH or LH (depending on whether it is a baryon or anti-baryon), but not "mixed". This imply that neutrinos conserved the so-call "chiral symmetry". We can always say that neutrinos do not conserve Chiral symmetry, and then there would be neutrino "oscillations", i.e. mass. So that's not a problem to the SM.
I guess your SM is a more constrained version of my SM. My idea of a "crack SM" is that SM is proven wrong, which it is. But not by discovery of massive Tau Neutrino.
....First off, it will help us decipher exactly how much dark matter is out there It's now generally believed that neutrinos do not, even at the best estimate, have sufficient mass to make up the "dark matter"..... Secondly, it will help us figure out if the universe is either going to expand forever, expand to a point, or eventually contract down upon itself The Cosmological Constant is now in vogue as a solution to the "missing mass" problem.....The more mass these neutrinos have, the more likely it is that the universe is a never ending series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. This statement is, of course, totally wrong. The mass density of the universe do not decide whether we wil have a series of BB and BC or not.
The tau neutrino is PREDICTED by the SM! So how it's detection break it?
Also, massive neutrinos are easily accomadated by the SM too, so that's a non-issue.
Having said that, the SM is now widely believed to be INCOMPLETE, i.e. it is just a low energy approximation of some thing more complete. (Yes, we only have accelerators at "low" energy, even the dead Supercollider is "low" energy..)
It was amazing. In a sudden flash of enlightment, it was clear to me what is wrong and what is right. The Moral Code materialized in front of me, and a booming voice read out the wonderful ethics engraved upon it.
I knew....I KNEW......what is GOOD for me and what is BAD for me. I knew GOODNESS and I knew EVIL.
It was the most soul-blasting, mind-blowing, gut-wrenching experience of my life, when I turned 18.
(Now, I talked to JC and tried my very best to ask my young friends to WAIT....WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE 18!)
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by "more efficient" ways of space travel? Let's investigate your ideas one by one : (a) Research New Propulsion systems : And to go where? Propulsion systems technology is driven by need, and if you don't plan to go anywhere, there is no need. So no new systems. (b) Building Waystations in Orbit : This is one of those "myth" ideas that perpertuated by too much science fiction. Waystations in orbit are stupid : you waste fuel getting into an orbit instead of just flying straight to your target. Now, you say (ala Armageddon), we can "refuel" there. But then how the hell does the fuel gets there in the first place? Answer : you fly them there, and that takes MORE fuel. It's easy to show (mathematically) that costs more (basically, rockets scale up favourably : the bigger they are, the cheaper they get per kg payload). So go do some maths. (c) Building Lunar Refueling station : That's another science fiction myth. Do you know it's CHEAPER (i.e. smaller rocket) to land something on Mars than to land something on the Moon? Crazy? No : mars has an atmosphere to aerobreak a probe. Moon does not. I know : I spent a month doing calculations in a feasability study on a "Cheap Lunar Lander" mission. Going to the Moon to refuel is like going to New York to refuel on a trip from Chicago to Los Angeles. (d) Repair Facilities : In space, you don't "repair" something : you replace them. It's WAAY cheaper to be redundant in components than to build elaborate facilities to repair things....without knowing what things/spare parts/equipment to stock because you don't know what's going to fail. (e)Water stations for Fusion Reactors : Water has H and O inside, and H2O2 (Hydrogen Peroxide) is standard rocket fuel. But you need FISSION reactors to get H and O out, NOT Fusion Reactors. And you don't need Water Stations : you need water extractors : and they already exist. My professor once told me that people who think that they can "plan everything ahead", and do all the groundwork before pushing the "magic button" and elaborate things will happen is going never going to be successful. Because research is a trial and error procedure. So There!
A year back, Rotary was the first with a prototype and a successful testflight.
I always like Rotary and their wacky but workable idea. (Rotating the combustion chamber using the centrifugal force as compressors, thus saving weight by chucking the massive turbopumps).
It's sad that the demise of Iridium had brought so many great ideas to a halt.
I HATE NASA I HATE DAN GOLDIN! It's all politics.
Lockheed-Martin is the Micro$oft of the space industry. It's just sad that there is no "grassroots" to combat this monopoly.
(Conestoga is another launch vehicle that is cool, cheap and not-politically connected, which means it died a painful death.)
The Delta Clipper.
NASA mothballed it because it crashed and burnt and Buzz Aldrin stepped over too many toes.
Napster did facillitate the piracy of copyrighted music.
The root of the problem lies with the use of the copyright laws on "intellectual property" (though some of the "music" is beyond my intellect).
If there be "grassroots" movement to overthrow the status quo : stop agreeing to pay $15 bux for a piece of silicon with crappy music inside.
But do it for the right reasons, i.e. boycott to protest the exorbitant prices, not against the ruling.
They did not change methods, methinks. They are reacting to the Defendant's method of making the trial into a techno-trial instead of a civil-trial. Which is to the Defendant's advantage of course since it has the entire techno-geek brainpower behind them.
int rant()
{
Why does people like MPAA/RIAA and whatever **AA still try to hold on to the oxymoronic DMCA? It's the DIGITAL MILLENIUM from Chrissake! Copyright is DEAD!
For a few short decades, when the so-called "intellectual property" can only be produced by factories, artists (sic) make more money than they deserved. But the artists are not the only problem : it's the marketeers and recording studios and the managers etc who made obscene amount of money off the artists. I don't believe they (artists, managers and the lot) deserved the kind of money they make. 50M for some stupid jingle? Come on!
(Cut to oft-quoted inflated price of CDs, and the oft-quoted costs of "promotion").
So the internet came, saw, conquered. The 'intellectual property' is now back to what it really is : plain old information. Communication technology has rendered the artificially inflated business model of the "artists" obsolete.
With legislation like "DMCA", the recording/movie industry "fights back" by making the act of using modern technology illegal. Which is stupid : once the technology is there, people will use it. Legislation or not.
Now, I hear people(mostly the **AA types) saying that this "threaten" the livelihood of artists and the industry blah blah blah and it is unprecedented. The fact is that the software making industry has already long been "threatened"! Does the software industry collapse under incessant piracy?! Is Microsoft still around?!
So, win or lose, the DMCA is obsolete the first day it was made into law. And people will know eventually. Instead the **AA types should consider instead :
(a) Change the business model. Make the originals worth a lot more than copies. How? Putting in goodies. Maybe the artists' signature. Or improved packaging. Or (even better) some special offer off for the next guy's concert. Or a million other things. The caveat is that the industry has to put in more effort. But for the money they earned : they SHOULD.
(b) Lower prices. They already make inflated amount of money. I don't believe they deserve it. Technology will level the playing field.
Instead, the **AA types put money into lawyers (using the money that CONSUMERS has paid them of course) to betray the consumers.
Rant Over; return(0);}
Ah. But you have to show your face :)
You sound like a regular poster, except that you are afraid of being mod-ed to death with that (-1,Flamebait), so there!
Let's start a company call "Your (embarrassing) checks cash...No Questions!"
/. First!
We take a cut (say 10%) and make millions.
Remember : You Read It Here In
I get to see porn....all in the line of work protecting "consumers"!
cut back to yesterday's talk : the internet is a public place. And records should be kept public, and accessible.
But it did not prove His Existence, no?
Yes neutrinos (baryons) are RH and anti-neutrinos (anti-baryons) are LH, guess my parenthesis is not so clear but at least it's in the right (pun intended) order!
It requires the cosmological parameters to be some way and a curved space in some way. Pretty dead theory too.
Mayhaps, you should have a read at
1 Cor Chap 13?
:)
The mass density of the Universe only states whether :
(a) There is a Big Bang/no Big Bang.....
(b) There is a Big Crunch/No Big Crunch
(c) The universe is open/close (different from b)
*(d) an a possible, with some fudging, a universe that is "idling" (i.e. spend a lot of time in some state)
Whether or not the universe has a "series" of BB or BC depends on the magnitude of the Cosmological constant and the exact curvature of space (which we now think is flat, which precludes the "oscillating: model).
...for a discussion on neutrino oscillation, mass, and chiral symmetry conservation.
It all depends on how we defined SM I guess. You are correct on all points. Let me clarify my points :
"SM" is broken. I presume the original article means SM is wrong. We believed it is wrong. But it is not "broken" it the way you state it. Your "broken SM" actually is "Spontaneously Broken Symmetry" (or Phase Transition), which is easily accomadated by the SM (via the Higgs mechanism etc etc.)
Also, massive neutrino is not Death to SM. SM can easily _accomodate_ (the emphasis) the existence of mass in neutrinos. Basically, neutrinos are believed to be either RH or LH (depending on whether it is a baryon or anti-baryon), but not "mixed". This imply that neutrinos conserved the so-call "chiral symmetry". We can always say that neutrinos do not conserve Chiral symmetry, and then there would be neutrino "oscillations", i.e. mass. So that's not a problem to the SM.
I guess your SM is a more constrained version of my SM. My idea of a "crack SM" is that SM is proven wrong, which it is. But not by discovery of massive Tau Neutrino.
And my response said that SM can accomodate neutrino with mass. So that's no problem too.
Nuff-said.
....First off, it will help us decipher exactly how much dark matter is out there It's now generally believed that neutrinos do not, even at the best estimate, have sufficient mass to make up the "dark matter". .... Secondly, it will help us figure out if the universe is either going to expand forever, expand to a point, or eventually contract down upon itself The Cosmological Constant is now in vogue as a solution to the "missing mass" problem. ....The more mass these neutrinos have, the more likely it is that the universe is a never ending series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. This statement is, of course, totally wrong. The mass density of the universe do not decide whether we wil have a series of BB and BC or not.
The tau neutrino is PREDICTED by the SM! So how it's detection break it?
Also, massive neutrinos are easily accomadated by the SM too, so that's a non-issue.
Having said that, the SM is now widely believed to be INCOMPLETE, i.e. it is just a low energy approximation of some thing more complete. (Yes, we only have accelerators at "low" energy, even the dead Supercollider is "low" energy..)
/. should really have a resident science nut.
Religion, of course, should be designated .ORG instead of .COM, so I will put my hat with the FOOTBALL club.
:))
Unless you are a Christian, then it should be corinthians.GOV... (esp. when Bush gets elected...you Americans are gonna screw yourself
It's almost certain that a post have to be anti-Katz to gather Karma for those Mods who are anti-Katz!
Let the Karma-fest begins!
---
I remembered the day when I reached 18.
It was amazing. In a sudden flash of enlightment, it was clear to me what is wrong and what is right. The Moral Code materialized in front of me, and a booming voice read out the wonderful ethics engraved upon it.
I knew....I KNEW......what is GOOD for me and what is BAD for me. I knew GOODNESS and I knew EVIL.
It was the most soul-blasting, mind-blowing, gut-wrenching experience of my life, when I turned 18.
(Now, I talked to JC and tried my very best to ask my young friends to WAIT....WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE 18!)