Because the, "What, what? In the butt," video couldn't be found on Vimeo. And when it comes down to it, that's a pretty good representation of our current cultural values. =P
Combining something like this with a set of augmented reality goggles and a wifi chip (if we ever get ubiquitous broadband) could make for some really fun lunch breaks and such. Just imagine logging into a 3D shooter game with your goggles in such a way that everyone else logged into the game got marked (through augmented reality) with some sort of indicator (virtual costume or something). Then, using your new hand gesture control system, you could run around and, 'shoot,' at each other with a gesture of your hand while it is pointing like a gun. It would be less dangerous than paintball, less painful, and, hopefully, require less gear than typical laser tag. All in all, it could make for some really fun augmented reality real-life games.
As an addendum to this, NASA already has, or is currently planning (I can't recall) a solar sail project involving a cubesat and (IIRC) a 40 m^2 solar sail. I'll leave the googling for that mission up to the user.
Solar panels provide less and less power as you move away from the Sun. Once you get past the asteroid belt, and certainly once you get out to the likes of Jupiter and Saturn, they are practically worthless for energy generation. The solar panels that you would have to bring out to produce an appreciable amount of power at those distances would be so large as to make a solar sail nearly useless in propelling your spacecraft. And before you start talking to me about thin-cell, flexible membrane solar cells buttoned onto the back of your solar sail, please consider that such membranes tend to have about 1/3 the lifetime of typical space hardened PV's and about 1/2 the efficiency. This means your going to be toting one massive damn solar sail (which is perfectly feasible, but you start to hit a point of diminishing returns).
In other words, solar sail technology is best for slowly towing spacecraft back and forth between the inner planets of our solar system. Once you start talking about deep space exploration (beyond the asteroid belt) you need to start packing a better power source and a better means of attitude control (you also must realize that the further you get from the Sun, the less impulse can be imparted on a solar sail from the Sun). So, in the end, yes, this is a useful technology with limited applications. Making bold claims like it eliminating the need for carrying fuel, being the future of deep space exploration, or being one of the driving technologies in future space missions is just damn retarded. That was my point.
Then it is a lot of practical use, and those employees get appointed to the position of CEO. Or haven't you been watching the politics/developements (read games) played by large modern businesses lately?
Meh, don't bother. It's hard to convince the people who keep posting this kind of shit that the American space industry is anything but dead. Nevermind the fact that NASA still has the most impressive space research facility on the planet (JPL) or that they are working on various lifting technologies that include everything from hypersonics to extremely advanced aerodynamics (AMES research facility). Nevermind the fact that American business are now starting to launch vehicles into space, without existing government contracts, unlike almost any other nation on the planet. Nevermind the fact that Cassini has just detected evidence that methane based lifeforms may exist on Titan. Nevermind the fact that NASA is trying to land a rover the size of a mini cooper on mars.
Nah, we can just forget all of the missions that NASA has currently studying the Sun, Mercury, Pluto, Saturn, and just about every other interesting object in our solar system because Obama killed the space industry, dontcha know?
As old as it gets to see people post this kind of crap all over the internet, there is absolutely nothing that will convince them that America, space industry included, is nothing more than a washed up has been that is wallowing in its own filth these days. It's like trying to talk reasonably to a kid who has his fingers in his ears and is shouting, "La la la la la I can't hear you!" They'll only learn otherwise when they make the conscious decision to remove those fingers and grow up.
Oh for fuck's sake why do we keep linking to Inhabitat for news on space missions? The Ikaros project is, indeed, a newsworthy and exciting piece of nerd information. However, linking to a stupid environmental blog that holds informational gems like:
"Solar sails offer the best hope for deep space exploration because they eliminate the need to carry fuel." (Hint: No, they don't. They don't do that at all. You need maneuvering thrusters to align your spacecraft before deployment. You need a power source to provide electricity to power your control motors when you get too far away from the sun. Saying solar sails eliminate the need to carry fuel is like saying that a spoiler eliminates the need for a gas tank on a car because it improves gas mileage. That is a completely asinine statement.)
And:
"spacecraft — unlike airplanes — don’t have to contend with drag," (Also untrue. Depending on what orbit/space environment you are in, you may still have to contend with the drag of Earth's atmosphere. If you are deploying in LEO, this could induce a significant moment on your spacecraft. Also, thank you for pointing out the difference between aircraft and spacecraft...that was really weighing on my mind while reading about a spacecraft mission that is proof-of-concepting a new technology).
And:
"Of course, aliens aren’t the only reason to want to travel through space without carrying rocket fuel. NASA is also working with solar sails to develop ultra-efficient spacecrafts. " (Aliens and ultra-efficient spacecrafts eh? That's your high-quality independent journalism right there? Give me a break this kind of stupid babbling about a very important mission does nothing but patronize the spacecraft industry and the folks who worked on this particular bird).
Let me give you a hint Inhabitat readers, if you want to track the progress of an impressive space mission, try going to a news site that actually is focused on space. Maybe you should check out: Centauri Dreams or one of JAXA'sown website's regarding the hardwork and impressive design that went into designing this mission. Perhaps you should read and link to some articles that actually contain interesting, relevant, tech-centric discussions of the mission rather than your latest, retarded, three paragraph, juvenile blog whose most interesting mission detail: "....allowing it to launch the.0003-inch-thick sail," borders on painfully irrelevant.
I would have thought that's the way they were going to do it, however I can find no confirmation of that anywhere
Awhile ago (Februaryish I think) there was a discussion of what Hayabusa was going to have to do to get back to Earth on Spaceflightnow and some other websites. Back then, the maneuvers that were described indicated that there would be a recapture maneuver (sorry I am far too lazy to go dig through old press releases to find those stories). However, upon reexamining what information I can find on Hayabusa, it appears that is either no longer the case, or it never really was and the profile suggested months ago was, in fact, simply a hopeful theory.
Regardless of how they are doing it, Hayabasu is going to have the second fastest re-entry of any satellite, over 12.2 km/s (compared to the shuttle's 8.2 km/s). Note this is also faster than Earth's escape velocity of 11.2 km/s (which tells me that the bird is not in orbit). The heat shield will be dealing with heating loads many times higher than the shuttle's. All in all, it's worth sending the NASA team out.
And all of this is completely true. I agree that NASA should take a look at the data. That's a good thing. It was not my intention to state otherwise, I was simply trying to educate you on the dynamics of vehicle reentry, which it appears you are well aware of. My mistake. Cheers.
Meh, bad morning with little coffee. It probably wasn't an entirely appropriate response, but it's out there.
Regarding my claim that JAXA is probably footing the bill, no, I have no citations to back that up. I know this is a JAXA mission because I have followed Hayabusa for years now, eagerly, so I have done research. I made the claim regarding NASA being hired as consultants based on past experiences working with NASA through other agencies (namely the university I attended and one of my previous employers). Sometimes NASA feels charitable enough to donate their time and efforts to help other organizations. Often, NASA does not feel this way and, if you want their consultation on a matter, you will get charged for it. Even when you foot the bill for such consultation, it is pretty common for NASA to ask for whatever data/feedback you can provide them with as a means of reducing the hefty price of asking for NASA's help. I would wager that some kind of contract that describes NASA's relationship with JAXA on this project exists somewhere, but I doubt I will ever have access to it.
That said, my claims were made from personal experience in the work I have done with NASA only.
Truth is, it's hard to separate us from them. We are part of natural selection.
That was very well said and I would like to hear your (a Biologist's) perspective on a notion I voiced in one of my long-winded rambles above: here
If you have the time, and you're bored, I would be curious to hear your thoughts regarding my thoughts that a species like humans could be a natural form of checks and balances for natural selection. Specifically, if you have ever heard anything similar voiced, I would be curious to know the source (perhaps someone already wrote a book or something discussing this? I mostly address that point near the bottom of my post so you can read just that if you like (or none at all) but I really would like to hear what a biologist thinks about that notion.
I do not care about absolutes, my issue is that people see facts as good or bad
Well there might be a reason for that. As you said, many people apply a quality judgment to statements of fact. Perhaps this very ability is the direct descendant of some naturally selective pressures in mankind's evolution from long ago. The ubiquity of emotional responses to the world we have today strikes me as a mountain of evidence that perhaps such a selective process did occur at one time. Now, that being said, why is it, 'better,' to stick to just addressing the facts and not having an emotional response to them?
In other words, what evidence, exactly, can you site that says that we should respond to statements of fact logically and not emotionally? It seems to me that, since humans do respond to statements of fact emotionally, and since humans are still rockin' out at the top of the food chain, then perhaps that is, indeed, the better way to respond to statements of fact.
What is it that makes logic and fact the absolute god that is to be held in value above all else? Do you have any intrinsic facts to show that the logical discussion of facts is, indeed, the, 'better,' form of behavior?
PS: If you try to cite Slashdot discussions for your evidence for logic being better, then you win the internet award for ironic self-pwning.
Greed has demonstrated itself to be a very effective trait in ensuring a human's survival in the modern world. Perhaps greed is nothing more than another specialization trait that allows humans to compete very effectively in the current global ecosystem. Are there any studies linking a particular gene or genes to an overdeveloped coveting response (like some chemical reaction in the brain that is more powerful in 'greedy' individuals because their genes specified a particular over-sized gland or something?
We are responsible, and not to the tuna but to the people whose livelihood depends on them, and to the people like me who find them delicious.
You know, I find it very interesting that we are the only species that claims responsibility for its role in the extinction of other species. It is not as if we are the only creatures to cause the extinction of another species on this planet. Ten thousand years ago or so, various species of wolf out-competed the Dire Wolf and drove that animal to extinction. Yet, those wolves display no natural tendencies or abilities to rectify such a situation (if, rectification is indeed necessary).
Now, granted, we humans are much more intelligent than most species on this planet (at least, by our own definition of intelligence), and we certainly have accounted for numerous extinction events in our short time here on this planet. However, it seems to me that very few people address the idea that, perhaps, this too is part of the natural selection process in the long run. Humans, like any other animal, put a burden on their ecosystem by existing within it. As such, certain parts of that ecosystem, that are unable to compete with a human presence end up collapsing. However, this occurs quite often when new species are introduced to different ecosystems (either by specification, or migration, or whatever). The only discerning question between humans and other species seems to be one of quantity. We humans tend to spread out and involve ourselves in many ecosystems, so our impact occurs more often and, thus appears more drastic. Nonetheless, that can easily be attributed to the fact that human beings have a very large population, and we exist at the top of most food chains. This means we can have a very heavy impact on the ecosystems in which we exist.
Now, when you look at things from that perspective, it begs the question of whether or not humans can be considered, part of the natural selection process. I mean, it's not as if there is some divine law handed down from on high (or wherever your favored source of authority exists) that says natural selection does not include human beings. Knowing that, is it fair, or reasonable, to say that human existence is, indeed, a small portion of the current process of natural selection paradigm? In other words, do the pressures exerted on an ecosystem due to humanity qualify as appropriate selective criteria in determining which species will thrive and which will die of?
Hell, maybe in the big scheme of things (as if there is one) humans are merely a mechanism enabled by natural selection to inhibit the unsustainable growth of diversity on the planet (not saying that the current diversity is unsustainable, but it's an interesting thought). I mean, think about it. If natural selection simply allowed for the forking of species continuously, without natural checks and balances, then, eventually, such diversity in an ecosystem could potentially cause harm one day (for the compy geeks out there, think of the over-polluted *nix repos that make it difficult to determine which software to use). That being the case, it would make sense that natural selection had an in-built mechanism that allowed an over-consuming species to evolve every once in awhile. If each iteration of specification allowed for better collection of necessary resources, eventually a species would naturally occur that is the best at gathering too many of those resources. That over-consuming species would then out-compete/dominate many other species in the ecosystem, causing many extinctions. The species would then grow to be unsustainable itself because it would have grown too populous and would no longer have a supporting food chain beneath it. This could allow that over-consuming species shrink or collapse entirely, leaving a much reduced level of diversity in an ecosystem. Thus, natural selection would continue based on a smaller subset of initial competitors and, if the ecosystem had indeed been growing too diverse, this wo
While I wouldn't use something like a mass extinction event to underscore my point, I think the parent that you are responding to made a legitimate claim in his first sentence:
We don't know what is acceptable diversity though.
This is a genuine point. While we realize that diversity is good, yes, we do not, to my knowledge, have any objective indicator of good/bad bounds on diversity. If you look at the natural history of any area of the world, you will see that species have died off, at almost all levels of the food chain, at various points in time. Sometimes these species died off due to human intervention (like, say, the Moa bird in New Zealand, or the Java Tiger). Sometimes they died off from natural Darwinism or other causes (Giant Sloth of Georgia, or the Dire Wolf of Canada). That said, when animals/species do go extinct, it is very rarely (seemingly) as big of a crisis as the press would have us often believe. After all, we are still here. The ecosystem is still diverse. And thus far, nature hasn't thrown such a violent temper-tantrum so as to cause mass starvation and death.
To address the concern of this particular article, we are talking about the Bluefin Tuna. Well, a Tuna is a large fish that is somewhere in the middle of the food chain. It feeds on creatures lower in the food chain, and is eaten by creatures higher in the food chain. However, it is not the only fish to fill it's particular role in said food chain. In fact, the article and even the summary comments on one of the Bluefin's natural competitor's the Yellowfin Tuna. This is just one example of many other competitors that occupy the same, or very similar ecological roles as the Bluefin. Thus, what I think the parent was trying to get at was that even if the Bluefin population collapses (which, of course, would suck to some extent or another), it would not be some great ecological crisis. In fact, since we don't know exactly what the optimal amount of diversity for a given ecosystem is, claiming, generally, that diversity is good and so extinction is bad is pretty disingenuous. For all we know, a given ecosystem may actually need a particular species to die out so that the rest of the ecosystem may maintain equilibrium.
Now, granted, the oil spill killing the Bluefin would not be a form of natural selection per-say (unless of course you recognize that humanity, and even it's great blunders, are part of nature and, therefore, part of natural selection today involves nature selecting for the best species to coexist with humanity), but it still may not be an utter crisis for that particular fish to die out. In fact, it might be healthy for the ecosystem to some extent...we really don't know. Thus, simply claiming, 'diversity is good,' is nothing more than over simplifying a very complex equilibrium, while pointing out that we don't know how much diversity is actually good diversity seems like a valid point to be made.
And to be very specific, I don't think you, or anybody else, is going to die because one species of tuna collapsed in the North Atlantic.
One other interesting idea...if you really want to get these things into the mainstream, work with the sex pill companies to rig up a pair that can inject a sex-enhancement drug on command. Nothing would get these babies into mainstream public use like the promise of an on-demand erection.
I'd love to see the readings off of a pair of these things when someone got an unexpected wedgie.
Also interesting, it seems this could be the first step towards a suit of medical power armor. Who'd have guessed that such a great item would have started inside your pants?
....the operators had no idea whether it had collected material from the surface and it is likely they still don't know.
Yeah, well, leave it to the Slashdot community to just make shit up in the summary for no apparent reason. Look on the bright side, at least there aren't any threads on this story complaining about how bad the media is at factually portraying technical media. Sometimes the irony of those rants being posted on Slashdot is just too much to handle.
Don't think that coming in from 300,000 times the altitude is going to make a teeny-weeny bit of difference in the re-entry velocity?
No, it doesn't. You perform an appropriate delta v maneuver prior to reentry that puts you back into some elliptical Earth orbit, also prior to reentry (in fact, that's really the most amazing part of this mission, Hayabusa has done all of those prior maneuvers with one hacked together experimental plasma thrust after three other thrusters failed). After you do that recapture maneuver, you perform a second delta v burn that will slow you down to reentry velocity. It's not like you just point your spacecraft at the planet and burn as hard as you can to hit it. You actually design your reentry precisely so that you don't come into the atmosphere at a stupid-high velocity. Or did you think that the folks that work at space agencies (astrophysicists and rocket scientists) really don't know better than you do?
You do realize that this is a JAXA (Japanese space agency) mission and not a NASA mission, right? NASA is being used for consultation only and, as such, the Japanese will be footing the bill for NASA's aid in this mission.
Don't let that stop your indignant rant about your taxes though...I wouldn't want to impede upon your right to act like a retard on the internet since you are a taxpaying citizen and all.
Bullshit! Guns create endless amounts of harmless entertainment and cool looking effects when used properly and safely. You can argue over whether or not entertainment is a worthwhile endeavor if you like, but to deny the fact that guns do, quite often, get used for the sole purpose of making their owners smile is quite ridiculous.
If Bush were in office we'd probably be invading Great Britain right now.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. First off, Great Britain actually has ties to BP, so it wouldn't fit in with Bush's track record of going after completely unrelated entities a-la Afghanistan/Iraq style. Secondly, Great Britain would be far too obvious a target since they could actually be implicated in the BP fuck ups through corrupt officials. It would make much more sense for Bush to attack someone that has some cloudy, uncertain, unlinked nature with BP...someone like India. See, Great Britain also has crappy beaches and India's beaches are nice and warm and sandy, so there is that added benefit. Besides that, the gulf stream is supposed to make Britain's beaches get FUBARED as well, so no, it's much better to avoid Mother Britain all together.
If Bush were still president, we wouldn't even speak of Britain. We'd be much more likely to invade India for being a colony of rebels that attacked our great ally Britain so many years ago. An ally, mind you, that is trying to reduce our gas prices so we could drive our SUVs to the Longhorn's game this weekend. Besides, we already have troops somewhat near India so the logistics make more sense. On top of that, India has been launching satellites lately and discovered water on the moon (the same moon that Bush wants to colonize one day) before we did, so they are trying to beat us to our own manifest destiny amongst the stars. Besides, since those satellites are launched on rockets, and rockets are what the Russians used to talk about attacking the US with in combination with WMD's, India probably has WMDs.
So yeah, India is definitely a threat and needs to be invaded right away. Besides, I hear they aren't a good Christian nation like real civilizations...they worship some seven armed Goddess or something and actually believe in reincarnation, pagan devils. It's time to stop India's encroachment on our rights once and for all!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're already a better science fiction writer than the doofuses in charge of SG-U. You should exploit those talents. ;)
Because the, "What, what? In the butt," video couldn't be found on Vimeo. And when it comes down to it, that's a pretty good representation of our current cultural values. =P
Elon Musk has a pretty good track record too.
Combining something like this with a set of augmented reality goggles and a wifi chip (if we ever get ubiquitous broadband) could make for some really fun lunch breaks and such. Just imagine logging into a 3D shooter game with your goggles in such a way that everyone else logged into the game got marked (through augmented reality) with some sort of indicator (virtual costume or something). Then, using your new hand gesture control system, you could run around and, 'shoot,' at each other with a gesture of your hand while it is pointing like a gun. It would be less dangerous than paintball, less painful, and, hopefully, require less gear than typical laser tag. All in all, it could make for some really fun augmented reality real-life games.
If you want to hear more stories about space missions, particularly cutting edge ones, check out some of the following sites:
Spaceflightnow.com
Space.com
The Space Fellowship
The Planetary Society
and, of course,
JAXA
NASA
JPL
There are other sites, but those are some of my favorite.
As an addendum to this, NASA already has, or is currently planning (I can't recall) a solar sail project involving a cubesat and (IIRC) a 40 m^2 solar sail. I'll leave the googling for that mission up to the user.
solar panels provide power.
Solar panels provide less and less power as you move away from the Sun. Once you get past the asteroid belt, and certainly once you get out to the likes of Jupiter and Saturn, they are practically worthless for energy generation. The solar panels that you would have to bring out to produce an appreciable amount of power at those distances would be so large as to make a solar sail nearly useless in propelling your spacecraft. And before you start talking to me about thin-cell, flexible membrane solar cells buttoned onto the back of your solar sail, please consider that such membranes tend to have about 1/3 the lifetime of typical space hardened PV's and about 1/2 the efficiency. This means your going to be toting one massive damn solar sail (which is perfectly feasible, but you start to hit a point of diminishing returns).
In other words, solar sail technology is best for slowly towing spacecraft back and forth between the inner planets of our solar system. Once you start talking about deep space exploration (beyond the asteroid belt) you need to start packing a better power source and a better means of attitude control (you also must realize that the further you get from the Sun, the less impulse can be imparted on a solar sail from the Sun). So, in the end, yes, this is a useful technology with limited applications. Making bold claims like it eliminating the need for carrying fuel, being the future of deep space exploration, or being one of the driving technologies in future space missions is just damn retarded. That was my point.
they can also become criminal overlords, military strategists, bounty hunters, or business tycoons.
I fail to see how the last position on that list differs from the first....
Then what practical use is it to the real world?
Then it is a lot of practical use, and those employees get appointed to the position of CEO. Or haven't you been watching the politics/developements (read games) played by large modern businesses lately?
Meh, don't bother. It's hard to convince the people who keep posting this kind of shit that the American space industry is anything but dead. Nevermind the fact that NASA still has the most impressive space research facility on the planet (JPL) or that they are working on various lifting technologies that include everything from hypersonics to extremely advanced aerodynamics (AMES research facility). Nevermind the fact that American business are now starting to launch vehicles into space, without existing government contracts, unlike almost any other nation on the planet. Nevermind the fact that Cassini has just detected evidence that methane based lifeforms may exist on Titan. Nevermind the fact that NASA is trying to land a rover the size of a mini cooper on mars.
Nah, we can just forget all of the missions that NASA has currently studying the Sun, Mercury, Pluto, Saturn, and just about every other interesting object in our solar system because Obama killed the space industry, dontcha know?
As old as it gets to see people post this kind of crap all over the internet, there is absolutely nothing that will convince them that America, space industry included, is nothing more than a washed up has been that is wallowing in its own filth these days. It's like trying to talk reasonably to a kid who has his fingers in his ears and is shouting, "La la la la la I can't hear you!" They'll only learn otherwise when they make the conscious decision to remove those fingers and grow up.
Oh for fuck's sake why do we keep linking to Inhabitat for news on space missions? The Ikaros project is, indeed, a newsworthy and exciting piece of nerd information. However, linking to a stupid environmental blog that holds informational gems like:
.0003-inch-thick sail," borders on painfully irrelevant.
/endnerdrage
"Solar sails offer the best hope for deep space exploration because they eliminate the need to carry fuel." (Hint: No, they don't. They don't do that at all. You need maneuvering thrusters to align your spacecraft before deployment. You need a power source to provide electricity to power your control motors when you get too far away from the sun. Saying solar sails eliminate the need to carry fuel is like saying that a spoiler eliminates the need for a gas tank on a car because it improves gas mileage. That is a completely asinine statement.)
And:
"spacecraft — unlike airplanes — don’t have to contend with drag," (Also untrue. Depending on what orbit/space environment you are in, you may still have to contend with the drag of Earth's atmosphere. If you are deploying in LEO, this could induce a significant moment on your spacecraft. Also, thank you for pointing out the difference between aircraft and spacecraft...that was really weighing on my mind while reading about a spacecraft mission that is proof-of-concepting a new technology).
And:
"Of course, aliens aren’t the only reason to want to travel through space without carrying rocket fuel. NASA is also working with solar sails to develop ultra-efficient spacecrafts. " (Aliens and ultra-efficient spacecrafts eh? That's your high-quality independent journalism right there? Give me a break this kind of stupid babbling about a very important mission does nothing but patronize the spacecraft industry and the folks who worked on this particular bird).
Let me give you a hint Inhabitat readers, if you want to track the progress of an impressive space mission, try going to a news site that actually is focused on space. Maybe you should check out: Centauri Dreams or one of JAXA's own website's regarding the hardwork and impressive design that went into designing this mission. Perhaps you should read and link to some articles that actually contain interesting, relevant, tech-centric discussions of the mission rather than your latest, retarded, three paragraph, juvenile blog whose most interesting mission detail: "....allowing it to launch the
I would have thought that's the way they were going to do it, however I can find no confirmation of that anywhere
Awhile ago (Februaryish I think) there was a discussion of what Hayabusa was going to have to do to get back to Earth on Spaceflightnow and some other websites. Back then, the maneuvers that were described indicated that there would be a recapture maneuver (sorry I am far too lazy to go dig through old press releases to find those stories). However, upon reexamining what information I can find on Hayabusa, it appears that is either no longer the case, or it never really was and the profile suggested months ago was, in fact, simply a hopeful theory.
Regardless of how they are doing it, Hayabasu is going to have the second fastest re-entry of any satellite, over 12.2 km/s (compared to the shuttle's 8.2 km/s). Note this is also faster than Earth's escape velocity of 11.2 km/s (which tells me that the bird is not in orbit). The heat shield will be dealing with heating loads many times higher than the shuttle's. All in all, it's worth sending the NASA team out.
And all of this is completely true. I agree that NASA should take a look at the data. That's a good thing. It was not my intention to state otherwise, I was simply trying to educate you on the dynamics of vehicle reentry, which it appears you are well aware of. My mistake. Cheers.
(albeit a very rude one!)
Meh, bad morning with little coffee. It probably wasn't an entirely appropriate response, but it's out there.
Regarding my claim that JAXA is probably footing the bill, no, I have no citations to back that up. I know this is a JAXA mission because I have followed Hayabusa for years now, eagerly, so I have done research. I made the claim regarding NASA being hired as consultants based on past experiences working with NASA through other agencies (namely the university I attended and one of my previous employers). Sometimes NASA feels charitable enough to donate their time and efforts to help other organizations. Often, NASA does not feel this way and, if you want their consultation on a matter, you will get charged for it. Even when you foot the bill for such consultation, it is pretty common for NASA to ask for whatever data/feedback you can provide them with as a means of reducing the hefty price of asking for NASA's help. I would wager that some kind of contract that describes NASA's relationship with JAXA on this project exists somewhere, but I doubt I will ever have access to it.
That said, my claims were made from personal experience in the work I have done with NASA only.
Truth is, it's hard to separate us from them. We are part of natural selection.
That was very well said and I would like to hear your (a Biologist's) perspective on a notion I voiced in one of my long-winded rambles above: here
If you have the time, and you're bored, I would be curious to hear your thoughts regarding my thoughts that a species like humans could be a natural form of checks and balances for natural selection. Specifically, if you have ever heard anything similar voiced, I would be curious to know the source (perhaps someone already wrote a book or something discussing this? I mostly address that point near the bottom of my post so you can read just that if you like (or none at all) but I really would like to hear what a biologist thinks about that notion.
I do not care about absolutes, my issue is that people see facts as good or bad
Well there might be a reason for that. As you said, many people apply a quality judgment to statements of fact. Perhaps this very ability is the direct descendant of some naturally selective pressures in mankind's evolution from long ago. The ubiquity of emotional responses to the world we have today strikes me as a mountain of evidence that perhaps such a selective process did occur at one time. Now, that being said, why is it, 'better,' to stick to just addressing the facts and not having an emotional response to them?
In other words, what evidence, exactly, can you site that says that we should respond to statements of fact logically and not emotionally? It seems to me that, since humans do respond to statements of fact emotionally, and since humans are still rockin' out at the top of the food chain, then perhaps that is, indeed, the better way to respond to statements of fact.
What is it that makes logic and fact the absolute god that is to be held in value above all else? Do you have any intrinsic facts to show that the logical discussion of facts is, indeed, the, 'better,' form of behavior?
PS: If you try to cite Slashdot discussions for your evidence for logic being better, then you win the internet award for ironic self-pwning.
this is the result of some greedy assholes.
Greed has demonstrated itself to be a very effective trait in ensuring a human's survival in the modern world. Perhaps greed is nothing more than another specialization trait that allows humans to compete very effectively in the current global ecosystem. Are there any studies linking a particular gene or genes to an overdeveloped coveting response (like some chemical reaction in the brain that is more powerful in 'greedy' individuals because their genes specified a particular over-sized gland or something?
We are responsible, and not to the tuna but to the people whose livelihood depends on them, and to the people like me who find them delicious.
You know, I find it very interesting that we are the only species that claims responsibility for its role in the extinction of other species. It is not as if we are the only creatures to cause the extinction of another species on this planet. Ten thousand years ago or so, various species of wolf out-competed the Dire Wolf and drove that animal to extinction. Yet, those wolves display no natural tendencies or abilities to rectify such a situation (if, rectification is indeed necessary).
Now, granted, we humans are much more intelligent than most species on this planet (at least, by our own definition of intelligence), and we certainly have accounted for numerous extinction events in our short time here on this planet. However, it seems to me that very few people address the idea that, perhaps, this too is part of the natural selection process in the long run. Humans, like any other animal, put a burden on their ecosystem by existing within it. As such, certain parts of that ecosystem, that are unable to compete with a human presence end up collapsing. However, this occurs quite often when new species are introduced to different ecosystems (either by specification, or migration, or whatever). The only discerning question between humans and other species seems to be one of quantity. We humans tend to spread out and involve ourselves in many ecosystems, so our impact occurs more often and, thus appears more drastic. Nonetheless, that can easily be attributed to the fact that human beings have a very large population, and we exist at the top of most food chains. This means we can have a very heavy impact on the ecosystems in which we exist.
Now, when you look at things from that perspective, it begs the question of whether or not humans can be considered, part of the natural selection process. I mean, it's not as if there is some divine law handed down from on high (or wherever your favored source of authority exists) that says natural selection does not include human beings. Knowing that, is it fair, or reasonable, to say that human existence is, indeed, a small portion of the current process of natural selection paradigm? In other words, do the pressures exerted on an ecosystem due to humanity qualify as appropriate selective criteria in determining which species will thrive and which will die of?
Hell, maybe in the big scheme of things (as if there is one) humans are merely a mechanism enabled by natural selection to inhibit the unsustainable growth of diversity on the planet (not saying that the current diversity is unsustainable, but it's an interesting thought). I mean, think about it. If natural selection simply allowed for the forking of species continuously, without natural checks and balances, then, eventually, such diversity in an ecosystem could potentially cause harm one day (for the compy geeks out there, think of the over-polluted *nix repos that make it difficult to determine which software to use). That being the case, it would make sense that natural selection had an in-built mechanism that allowed an over-consuming species to evolve every once in awhile. If each iteration of specification allowed for better collection of necessary resources, eventually a species would naturally occur that is the best at gathering too many of those resources. That over-consuming species would then out-compete/dominate many other species in the ecosystem, causing many extinctions. The species would then grow to be unsustainable itself because it would have grown too populous and would no longer have a supporting food chain beneath it. This could allow that over-consuming species shrink or collapse entirely, leaving a much reduced level of diversity in an ecosystem. Thus, natural selection would continue based on a smaller subset of initial competitors and, if the ecosystem had indeed been growing too diverse, this wo
We don't know what is acceptable diversity though.
This is a genuine point. While we realize that diversity is good, yes, we do not, to my knowledge, have any objective indicator of good/bad bounds on diversity. If you look at the natural history of any area of the world, you will see that species have died off, at almost all levels of the food chain, at various points in time. Sometimes these species died off due to human intervention (like, say, the Moa bird in New Zealand, or the Java Tiger). Sometimes they died off from natural Darwinism or other causes (Giant Sloth of Georgia, or the Dire Wolf of Canada). That said, when animals/species do go extinct, it is very rarely (seemingly) as big of a crisis as the press would have us often believe. After all, we are still here. The ecosystem is still diverse. And thus far, nature hasn't thrown such a violent temper-tantrum so as to cause mass starvation and death.
To address the concern of this particular article, we are talking about the Bluefin Tuna. Well, a Tuna is a large fish that is somewhere in the middle of the food chain. It feeds on creatures lower in the food chain, and is eaten by creatures higher in the food chain. However, it is not the only fish to fill it's particular role in said food chain. In fact, the article and even the summary comments on one of the Bluefin's natural competitor's the Yellowfin Tuna. This is just one example of many other competitors that occupy the same, or very similar ecological roles as the Bluefin. Thus, what I think the parent was trying to get at was that even if the Bluefin population collapses (which, of course, would suck to some extent or another), it would not be some great ecological crisis. In fact, since we don't know exactly what the optimal amount of diversity for a given ecosystem is, claiming, generally, that diversity is good and so extinction is bad is pretty disingenuous. For all we know, a given ecosystem may actually need a particular species to die out so that the rest of the ecosystem may maintain equilibrium.
Now, granted, the oil spill killing the Bluefin would not be a form of natural selection per-say (unless of course you recognize that humanity, and even it's great blunders, are part of nature and, therefore, part of natural selection today involves nature selecting for the best species to coexist with humanity), but it still may not be an utter crisis for that particular fish to die out. In fact, it might be healthy for the ecosystem to some extent...we really don't know. Thus, simply claiming, 'diversity is good,' is nothing more than over simplifying a very complex equilibrium, while pointing out that we don't know how much diversity is actually good diversity seems like a valid point to be made.
And to be very specific, I don't think you, or anybody else, is going to die because one species of tuna collapsed in the North Atlantic.
One other interesting idea...if you really want to get these things into the mainstream, work with the sex pill companies to rig up a pair that can inject a sex-enhancement drug on command. Nothing would get these babies into mainstream public use like the promise of an on-demand erection.
I'd love to see the readings off of a pair of these things when someone got an unexpected wedgie.
Also interesting, it seems this could be the first step towards a suit of medical power armor. Who'd have guessed that such a great item would have started inside your pants?
....the operators had no idea whether it had collected material from the surface and it is likely they still don't know.
Yeah, well, leave it to the Slashdot community to just make shit up in the summary for no apparent reason. Look on the bright side, at least there aren't any threads on this story complaining about how bad the media is at factually portraying technical media. Sometimes the irony of those rants being posted on Slashdot is just too much to handle.
Don't think that coming in from 300,000 times the altitude is going to make a teeny-weeny bit of difference in the re-entry velocity?
No, it doesn't. You perform an appropriate delta v maneuver prior to reentry that puts you back into some elliptical Earth orbit, also prior to reentry (in fact, that's really the most amazing part of this mission, Hayabusa has done all of those prior maneuvers with one hacked together experimental plasma thrust after three other thrusters failed). After you do that recapture maneuver, you perform a second delta v burn that will slow you down to reentry velocity. It's not like you just point your spacecraft at the planet and burn as hard as you can to hit it. You actually design your reentry precisely so that you don't come into the atmosphere at a stupid-high velocity. Or did you think that the folks that work at space agencies (astrophysicists and rocket scientists) really don't know better than you do?
You do realize that this is a JAXA (Japanese space agency) mission and not a NASA mission, right? NASA is being used for consultation only and, as such, the Japanese will be footing the bill for NASA's aid in this mission.
Don't let that stop your indignant rant about your taxes though...I wouldn't want to impede upon your right to act like a retard on the internet since you are a taxpaying citizen and all.
Bullshit! Guns create endless amounts of harmless entertainment and cool looking effects when used properly and safely. You can argue over whether or not entertainment is a worthwhile endeavor if you like, but to deny the fact that guns do, quite often, get used for the sole purpose of making their owners smile is quite ridiculous.
=P
If Bush were in office we'd probably be invading Great Britain right now.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. First off, Great Britain actually has ties to BP, so it wouldn't fit in with Bush's track record of going after completely unrelated entities a-la Afghanistan/Iraq style. Secondly, Great Britain would be far too obvious a target since they could actually be implicated in the BP fuck ups through corrupt officials. It would make much more sense for Bush to attack someone that has some cloudy, uncertain, unlinked nature with BP...someone like India. See, Great Britain also has crappy beaches and India's beaches are nice and warm and sandy, so there is that added benefit. Besides that, the gulf stream is supposed to make Britain's beaches get FUBARED as well, so no, it's much better to avoid Mother Britain all together.
...
If Bush were still president, we wouldn't even speak of Britain. We'd be much more likely to invade India for being a colony of rebels that attacked our great ally Britain so many years ago. An ally, mind you, that is trying to reduce our gas prices so we could drive our SUVs to the Longhorn's game this weekend. Besides, we already have troops somewhat near India so the logistics make more sense. On top of that, India has been launching satellites lately and discovered water on the moon (the same moon that Bush wants to colonize one day) before we did, so they are trying to beat us to our own manifest destiny amongst the stars. Besides, since those satellites are launched on rockets, and rockets are what the Russians used to talk about attacking the US with in combination with WMD's, India probably has WMDs.
So yeah, India is definitely a threat and needs to be invaded right away. Besides, I hear they aren't a good Christian nation like real civilizations...they worship some seven armed Goddess or something and actually believe in reincarnation, pagan devils. It's time to stop India's encroachment on our rights once and for all!
Errrr....what were we talking about again?