You are totally ridiculous. for a large portion of the last 4 billion years earth was a large molten rock. At that time scale, we live in a rather changeable time as far as climate goes.
And, frankly, in a couple hundred years i don't expect humans to have much interest in earth anymore, or in biological bodies. but i would like to leave earth suitable for the dolphins or gorillas or lizardmen who will supplant us as dominant species.
How, then, could they justify the exorbitant tuition? If you don't NEED the teachers or classrooms, well, it might as well be a CORRESPONDENCE School!@
seriously, though, they are fighting the same digital era fight that all the other content creators are fighting. I think they are coming to the realization that if they don't crack down now, they will just end up as test-graders and certification-givers.
ps I went to an American school and almost no classes had mandatory attendance.
PC's won't die. Terminology might change, but the PC will be around for a very long time.
here's an example: PDA's "died" about 5 years ago. Smartphones were the future. and today we have iphones and android phones. the OS is different, and the hardware is a generation removed, the the key difference is that PDA's didn't have a cell phone transmitter/receiver.
I was making skype calls over wifi on my iPAQ ~8 years ago. but, hey, PDA's are dead, right?
Not that the ships have smokestacks like coal power plants, but it must be more efficient to clean 1 extra large ship than 10 large ships. I'm assuming you can leverage economies of scale for more efficient scrubbers in the extra large ships
However, It might be more efficient to propel 10 ships than one extra large one, which might lead to less fuel use and less emissions.
ships also use bunker fuel, which is pretty much like a petroleum butter. it's what's left over after they refine off all the good stuff from crude oil, and has to be heated to be kept fluid.
perhaps cats point with their ears, or tail, whereas dogs point with their noses. It might be a smaller cognitive leap to assume a hand is a nose-analog instead of a ear or tail-analog.
But modern dogs are just applying pre-programed "skills" to human tasks. Breeding has been used to reinforced or suppress their instinctual urges as we see fit.
Isn't this similar to programing a computer? Even simple programs can have complex emergent behavior.
My annoyance is that calling this a spacecraft craps all over groups that are working very hard to develop ACTUAL spacecraft. This is a balloon, which has a well defined definition.
a sealed capsule is not really a spacecraft anymore than a submarine is a spacecraft.
Any balloon, no mater how high it goes, REQUIRES the atmosphere to reach "space".
another example: a boat is not an airplane, even though it can be thousands of meters above the ground
I didn't really make it clear that it's an either/or situation. However, I was trying to explain that you don't really save anything by picking one over the other. I also wanted to show that labor costs are not going to go down, even if the equipment gets cheaper.
It can be really cheap if you just use batteries and DC appliances. you can install the system yourself if your competent. However, if your state offers rebates, you probably won't qualify for this type of system.
Solar WILL save you money in the long run, and is a great investment if your are buying property to build a house. It might be a good option for an existing house, but only if the roof is oriented properly, there is adequate sq footage, and there is no shade. Most existing homes are not right for solar. houses really need to be purpose built for solar panels.
Solar array costs per watt have dropped considerably, but an array still costs an arm and a leg.
here are some reasons:
- Enough batteries to keep your freezer frozen through the night and maybe a couple cloudy days is expensive.
- Labor costs of installation are 25-50% of installation costs, but if you don't get it installed and inspected by the proper people, your home owners insurance will probably be canceled.
- It's very expensive to install enough panels to power multiple computers, multiple TV's, ACs, Fridges, Microwaves, and a multitude of other electronic devices. Customers need to reduce their power consumption before investing in a solar array.
- Tying your solar array into the grid is expensive. you can't just dump power into the grid. it has to be clean and in phase with grid power, and has to be installed by a certified electrician. (btw it's not just THE grid, it's the power companies grid. They tell you when you can use it. If the power goes down in your neighborhood they will turn off your inverter, because they need the lines powered down when the linemen are working on them.)
Labor costs are not going to go down drastically, so i don't know how much cheaper it can get to the end user. in addition, it seems that as panel costs go down, Inverters are getting more user-friendly, and hence more complex and expensive. inverters alone run from $5000 to $8000 these days.
Why would you want something like this x38? It seems to me that what you want in a space taxi is internal volume and safety. I would think a simpler shape for you heat shield would be more reliable, and cheaper, than an complex lifting body plane shape.
If you're just going to put a parafoil on it anyway, you might as well do the same for a capsule design.
Why do you say that they designed this with their own money?
The first line in the article reads:
Boeing has released the first public glimpse of the commercial spacecraft it is working on under an $18 million contract with NASA.
In addition, the article also states:
In Feb. NASA awarded some $50 million to Blue Origin, Boeing, Paragon Space Development Corporation, Sierra Nevada Corporation and United Launch Alliance to develop and demonstrate safe, reliable, and cost-effective capabilities to transport cargo and eventually crew to low-Earth orbit and the ISS.
NASAs manned exploration days are 30 years in the past. true, in the past 30 years we have learned a tremendous amount about how to keep humans alive and happy in space. However, they haven't invested nearly enough in basic research and development, most importantly engine development. making rockets more powerful, more efficient, and more resilient will reduce costs and improve safety.
Two of the most interesting ideas of the last decade were sold off to Chang-Diaz and Bigalow. NASA just couldn't afford to spend the money needed to make the technology work, so they sold it hoping others would have better luck with funding. Where did the money go instead? The ISS and the Shuttle.
If we did have a decade without a manned NASA program, I'd welcome it. NASA would probably get more useful research done in those 10 years than they have in the last 25.
My point is that instead of waiting for a better grid to average out wind power fluctuation, customers could do the averaging themselves. Google, for example, could build a data center there and when energy is almost free because the wind is blowing strong, they'd funnel traffic there.
I'm sure there are other industries where the highest percentage of your operating costs goes to electricity, and having a facility sit fallow, if you will, while you wait for cheap power makes economic sense for that industry.
Pumped storage is fine, but all you are left with is electricity. Sooner or later you have to turn that electricity into work. Why not use cheap electricity to make hydrogen? Or make widgets or build data centers.
It is probably quicker to build a manufacturing facility closer to the source than it is to get approval for the transmission lines or pumped storage. It would also creates jobs in, typically, desolate places hungry for work.
The big caveat here is that there are enough parts sitting around for at least another 3 flights of shuttle hardware. We already paid for it to be built, so we should try to find a way to use it, and as cheaply as possible. Doing it cheaply means bolting on a payload with an engine instead of a shuttle.
The same budgetary things happened with Apollo. We had the hardware for Apollo 18, 19, and 20 ready to go, but funding got cut for them and that was that.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the same type of 'invisibility' preformed by magicians: i.e. mirrors.
Did somebody actually get a grant for this work?
Well it will 'work' at any altitude on earth. It will just work slightly faster in the Himalayas.
Humans can survive in all of the harshest environments on this planet. Humans will be able to survive long after almost everything else has died.
I envy those humans! What a live they'll live!
You are totally ridiculous.
for a large portion of the last 4 billion years earth was a large molten rock. At that time scale, we live in a rather changeable time as far as climate goes.
And, frankly, in a couple hundred years i don't expect humans to have much interest in earth anymore, or in biological bodies. but i would like to leave earth suitable for the dolphins or gorillas or lizardmen who will supplant us as dominant species.
How, then, could they justify the exorbitant tuition? If you don't NEED the teachers or classrooms, well, it might as well be a CORRESPONDENCE School!@
seriously, though, they are fighting the same digital era fight that all the other content creators are fighting. I think they are coming to the realization that if they don't crack down now, they will just end up as test-graders and certification-givers.
ps I went to an American school and almost no classes had mandatory attendance.
PC's won't die. Terminology might change, but the PC will be around for a very long time.
here's an example: PDA's "died" about 5 years ago. Smartphones were the future. and today we have iphones and android phones. the OS is different, and the hardware is a generation removed, the the key difference is that PDA's didn't have a cell phone transmitter/receiver.
I was making skype calls over wifi on my iPAQ ~8 years ago. but, hey, PDA's are dead, right?
Not that the ships have smokestacks like coal power plants, but it must be more efficient to clean 1 extra large ship than 10 large ships. I'm assuming you can leverage economies of scale for more efficient scrubbers in the extra large ships
However, It might be more efficient to propel 10 ships than one extra large one, which might lead to less fuel use and less emissions.
ships also use bunker fuel, which is pretty much like a petroleum butter. it's what's left over after they refine off all the good stuff from crude oil, and has to be heated to be kept fluid.
(mine still wants to go swimming even though the sea is starting to freeze).
And this is your example of intelligence? Wolves won't do this, since they understand that swimming in near freezing water will kill them.
I would much rather see a study measuring the intellegence of domesticated dogs versus wild dogs. I feel that that would be enlightening.
perhaps cats point with their ears, or tail, whereas dogs point with their noses. It might be a smaller cognitive leap to assume a hand is a nose-analog instead of a ear or tail-analog.
But modern dogs are just applying pre-programed "skills" to human tasks. Breeding has been used to reinforced or suppress their instinctual urges as we see fit. Isn't this similar to programing a computer? Even simple programs can have complex emergent behavior.
most dogs have had all the smarts bred out of them. a better question would be "which is smarter, wolves or lions?"
No, you won't.
I agree, the desks get destroyed. The chairs, on the other hand, stand up pretty well to teenager abuse.
What metalshop/woodshop? The only thing schools spend money on now is football/sports.
My annoyance is that calling this a spacecraft craps all over groups that are working very hard to develop ACTUAL spacecraft. This is a balloon, which has a well defined definition.
a sealed capsule is not really a spacecraft anymore than a submarine is a spacecraft.
Any balloon, no mater how high it goes, REQUIRES the atmosphere to reach "space".
another example: a boat is not an airplane, even though it can be thousands of meters above the ground
No no no. Broken are made to be limits.
Also, Limits are broken to be made
I didn't really make it clear that it's an either/or situation. However, I was trying to explain that you don't really save anything by picking one over the other. I also wanted to show that labor costs are not going to go down, even if the equipment gets cheaper.
It can be really cheap if you just use batteries and DC appliances. you can install the system yourself if your competent. However, if your state offers rebates, you probably won't qualify for this type of system.
Solar WILL save you money in the long run, and is a great investment if your are buying property to build a house. It might be a good option for an existing house, but only if the roof is oriented properly, there is adequate sq footage, and there is no shade. Most existing homes are not right for solar. houses really need to be purpose built for solar panels.
ps I'm AM a certified solar installer
Solar array costs per watt have dropped considerably, but an array still costs an arm and a leg.
here are some reasons:
- Enough batteries to keep your freezer frozen through the night and maybe a couple cloudy days is expensive.
- Labor costs of installation are 25-50% of installation costs, but if you don't get it installed and inspected by the proper people, your home owners insurance will probably be canceled.
- It's very expensive to install enough panels to power multiple computers, multiple TV's, ACs, Fridges, Microwaves, and a multitude of other electronic devices. Customers need to reduce their power consumption before investing in a solar array.
- Tying your solar array into the grid is expensive. you can't just dump power into the grid. it has to be clean and in phase with grid power, and has to be installed by a certified electrician. (btw it's not just THE grid, it's the power companies grid. They tell you when you can use it. If the power goes down in your neighborhood they will turn off your inverter, because they need the lines powered down when the linemen are working on them.)
Labor costs are not going to go down drastically, so i don't know how much cheaper it can get to the end user. in addition, it seems that as panel costs go down, Inverters are getting more user-friendly, and hence more complex and expensive. inverters alone run from $5000 to $8000 these days.
... or regulations on utilities like electricity and water. An even better precedent is telephone communication.
The internet is apparently SO different that we have to replace 100 years of precedent
Why would you want something like this x38? It seems to me that what you want in a space taxi is internal volume and safety. I would think a simpler shape for you heat shield would be more reliable, and cheaper, than an complex lifting body plane shape.
If you're just going to put a parafoil on it anyway, you might as well do the same for a capsule design.
Why do you say that they designed this with their own money?
The first line in the article reads:
In addition, the article also states:
NASAs manned exploration days are 30 years in the past. true, in the past 30 years we have learned a tremendous amount about how to keep humans alive and happy in space. However, they haven't invested nearly enough in basic research and development, most importantly engine development. making rockets more powerful, more efficient, and more resilient will reduce costs and improve safety.
Two of the most interesting ideas of the last decade were sold off to Chang-Diaz and Bigalow. NASA just couldn't afford to spend the money needed to make the technology work, so they sold it hoping others would have better luck with funding. Where did the money go instead? The ISS and the Shuttle.
If we did have a decade without a manned NASA program, I'd welcome it. NASA would probably get more useful research done in those 10 years than they have in the last 25.
My point is that instead of waiting for a better grid to average out wind power fluctuation, customers could do the averaging themselves. Google, for example, could build a data center there and when energy is almost free because the wind is blowing strong, they'd funnel traffic there.
I'm sure there are other industries where the highest percentage of your operating costs goes to electricity, and having a facility sit fallow, if you will, while you wait for cheap power makes economic sense for that industry.
Pumped storage is fine, but all you are left with is electricity. Sooner or later you have to turn that electricity into work. Why not use cheap electricity to make hydrogen? Or make widgets or build data centers.
It is probably quicker to build a manufacturing facility closer to the source than it is to get approval for the transmission lines or pumped storage. It would also creates jobs in, typically, desolate places hungry for work.
The big caveat here is that there are enough parts sitting around for at least another 3 flights of shuttle hardware. We already paid for it to be built, so we should try to find a way to use it, and as cheaply as possible. Doing it cheaply means bolting on a payload with an engine instead of a shuttle.
The same budgetary things happened with Apollo. We had the hardware for Apollo 18, 19, and 20 ready to go, but funding got cut for them and that was that.