Right... i'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that pretty much every PRT concept requires significant infrastructure to be built before it can be used. Significant infrastructure = large entry barrier.
It is already happening on satellite radio. Some channels already have full-on commercial breaks, and others have a "DJ" come on that makes some comment that is really nothing but thinly veiled advertising. I personally find it insulting, and will definitely drop my subscription if it becomes more widespread. The lack of commercials/lack of DJs (on some channels) is the only reason I subscribe, if that goes away, so do I.
You personally feel that information on planetary formation is more valuable than information on whether life exists/existed on another body in the solar system. There are a lot of people that would disagree. Those other people also have a portion of their tax dollars go to space science.
Besides, there is evidence that suggests the potential presence of life on mars, such as the presence of methane in the atmosphere. Methane should be short lived in the martian atmosphere, so its presence means that it is being actively released. As I understand it, life isn't the only possible explanation for the methane, but it is still a compelling reason to look.
It was selective breeding, not genetic engineering per se.
IE: It is the same thing that led to nice red apples, juicy peaches, and pretty much every other cultivated fruit or vegetable that ends up on your table. Oh the HORROR!
There are lots of nifty rare metals in asteroids. A LOT more than what is available in the earths crust. Many of those rare metals also tend to be really useful catalysts. As technology starts to make greater use of these metals, our earthly supply is going to be used up. If the price of those metals gets high enough, we will have a commercial space mining industry. Once that is in place, other companies will go to space to provide services for the mining companies, and so on.
Once there is economic incentive, we'll have a significant presence in space. But the incentive isn't there yet.
You're math is way off. My (rather rough) math based on your numbers says that the vasmir probe would be traveling about 16km/s after 1.5 years.
if you somehow managed to contain 49000kg of water within your 50kg of nuclear probe mass (must be some mighty thin tank walls), it would be going about 26km/s after 1.5 years. Most of that velocity is gained at the end when the probe mass is just a little over 50kg. If you add, say 2000kg for the water tank, the velocity is closer to 12.4km/s after 1.5 years.
I was trying to figure out how you would do something like that. Makes sense now that I see it. Looks like they still have a bit of a problem with the amount of rotating mass. It isn't able to react quite as fast as would be optimal.
The same thing happens in politics... After all Michelle Bachman still managed to keep her seat after agreeing that there should be an evaluation of the patriotism of government officials. One of the most unamerican comments I've ever heard, and yet she's still my congresswoman... *sigh*.
Negative mass would suggest negative inertia... now THAT gives me a headache. How the heck would you describe negative inertia? Would an object made of negative mass have a tendency to move unless force is exerted to keep it still?
Well, The same effect that allows you to use this as a method of propulsion would allow you to slow down while approaching a massive object. Unfortunately it would only slow you down to about 0.5c at most, which would be bad since at that point you would be very close to the aforementioned massive object. So you would need to reverse thrust for half of your journey, just like any other propulsion system that we have envisioned so far.
I don't have anything to cite, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of atmospheric humidity is due to evaporation of ocean water, rather than land based water. Land based water certainly does contribute, but I don't think it is to the extent that you believe. After all, all rivers (with maybe a few exceptions that end in outlet-less lakes) flow to the ocean. For them to continue to flow, water must be brought from the ocean back to land.
If you do something like that, then your balloon/payload will reach an equilibrium altitude, and will just stay there (until the hydrogen leaks out) floating around the planet... actually I seriously doubt it would stay up long enough to circle the globe, but it certainly could float several states away, and that would make retrieval a bitch.
Except the box WAS heated... by the batteries, as they were used. Combined with the box being made out of Styrofoam, the electronics managed to stay warm enough to function without problems. Evidently, the vacuum wasn't a big deal either, other than causing some membrane buttons to be forced down by atmospheric pressure when returning to the ground.
This is not the first group (by far) that has sent consumer electronics on a high-altitude ride. Maybe you should look around a bit more before you call something a fake.
No, they found the signature of hydrogen and oxygen bonded together, not just both hydrogen and oxygen. Thus there are at least hydroxyl compounds, if not water, on the moon. Regardless, it is the most direct evidence of water that we have ever found.
They actually DID find chemically bonded water in the rocks that were brought back from the moon, but the seals on the sample containers that the rocks were brought back in had failed, so scientists presumed that the small amounts of water they found had leaked in back on earth (humidity in the air) rather than having been present when on the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
Right... i'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that pretty much every PRT concept requires significant infrastructure to be built before it can be used. Significant infrastructure = large entry barrier.
It would still be DWI, because if something should fail with the control system, then you as a driver need to be able to take control of the car.
It is already happening on satellite radio. Some channels already have full-on commercial breaks, and others have a "DJ" come on that makes some comment that is really nothing but thinly veiled advertising. I personally find it insulting, and will definitely drop my subscription if it becomes more widespread. The lack of commercials/lack of DJs (on some channels) is the only reason I subscribe, if that goes away, so do I.
You personally feel that information on planetary formation is more valuable than information on whether life exists/existed on another body in the solar system. There are a lot of people that would disagree. Those other people also have a portion of their tax dollars go to space science.
Besides, there is evidence that suggests the potential presence of life on mars, such as the presence of methane in the atmosphere. Methane should be short lived in the martian atmosphere, so its presence means that it is being actively released. As I understand it, life isn't the only possible explanation for the methane, but it is still a compelling reason to look.
It was selective breeding, not genetic engineering per se.
IE: It is the same thing that led to nice red apples, juicy peaches, and pretty much every other cultivated fruit or vegetable that ends up on your table. Oh the HORROR!
There are lots of nifty rare metals in asteroids. A LOT more than what is available in the earths crust. Many of those rare metals also tend to be really useful catalysts. As technology starts to make greater use of these metals, our earthly supply is going to be used up. If the price of those metals gets high enough, we will have a commercial space mining industry. Once that is in place, other companies will go to space to provide services for the mining companies, and so on.
Once there is economic incentive, we'll have a significant presence in space. But the incentive isn't there yet.
You're math is way off. My (rather rough) math based on your numbers says that the vasmir probe would be traveling about 16km/s after 1.5 years.
if you somehow managed to contain 49000kg of water within your 50kg of nuclear probe mass (must be some mighty thin tank walls), it would be going about 26km/s after 1.5 years. Most of that velocity is gained at the end when the probe mass is just a little over 50kg. If you add, say 2000kg for the water tank, the velocity is closer to 12.4km/s after 1.5 years.
I was trying to figure out how you would do something like that. Makes sense now that I see it. Looks like they still have a bit of a problem with the amount of rotating mass. It isn't able to react quite as fast as would be optimal.
I agree.
The mazda3 s is a great little hatchback. Lots of fun to drive.
The same thing happens in politics... After all Michelle Bachman still managed to keep her seat after agreeing that there should be an evaluation of the patriotism of government officials. One of the most unamerican comments I've ever heard, and yet she's still my congresswoman... *sigh*.
Negative mass would suggest negative inertia... now THAT gives me a headache. How the heck would you describe negative inertia? Would an object made of negative mass have a tendency to move unless force is exerted to keep it still?
Well, The same effect that allows you to use this as a method of propulsion would allow you to slow down while approaching a massive object. Unfortunately it would only slow you down to about 0.5c at most, which would be bad since at that point you would be very close to the aforementioned massive object. So you would need to reverse thrust for half of your journey, just like any other propulsion system that we have envisioned so far.
Only until you drop below .5c Then you would proceed to slam into said object and become a very bright cloud of subatomic particles.
And everything seems to be moving apart... interesting, that.
I don't think we've ever created a gun that can fire bullets at relativistic speeds.
I don't have anything to cite, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of atmospheric humidity is due to evaporation of ocean water, rather than land based water. Land based water certainly does contribute, but I don't think it is to the extent that you believe. After all, all rivers (with maybe a few exceptions that end in outlet-less lakes) flow to the ocean. For them to continue to flow, water must be brought from the ocean back to land.
They don't. But the sky is a big place.
The payload WAS heated. By the batteries. It was also well insulated so that heat was conserved. Did you not even bother to read the article?
Right... [sarcasm] I guess all of the other people that have done something similar must have faked it too. [/sarcasm]
If you do something like that, then your balloon/payload will reach an equilibrium altitude, and will just stay there (until the hydrogen leaks out) floating around the planet... actually I seriously doubt it would stay up long enough to circle the globe, but it certainly could float several states away, and that would make retrieval a bitch.
I think you meant "combine". Columbine is a city. A combine is a harvester/piece of farm equipment.
Except the box WAS heated... by the batteries, as they were used. Combined with the box being made out of Styrofoam, the electronics managed to stay warm enough to function without problems. Evidently, the vacuum wasn't a big deal either, other than causing some membrane buttons to be forced down by atmospheric pressure when returning to the ground.
This is not the first group (by far) that has sent consumer electronics on a high-altitude ride. Maybe you should look around a bit more before you call something a fake.
Yeah... the first thing that jumped into my mind was Cartman shouting "I'm not fat! I'm big-boned!"
No, they found the signature of hydrogen and oxygen bonded together, not just both hydrogen and oxygen. Thus there are at least hydroxyl compounds, if not water, on the moon. Regardless, it is the most direct evidence of water that we have ever found.
They actually DID find chemically bonded water in the rocks that were brought back from the moon, but the seals on the sample containers that the rocks were brought back in had failed, so scientists presumed that the small amounts of water they found had leaked in back on earth (humidity in the air) rather than having been present when on the moon.