I think you forgot what is arguably the most valuable profession of all, in any society. The food producers. Whether it is a farmer, a hunter, or a saavy tradesmen that brings food into your society, that is the cornerstone of your civilization. If you don't have some sort of food producer, little else matters. It's possible that doctors are on equal footing with food producers, or, at least, a very close second.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pirsig, has some interesting (and very rational) discussions about the trappings of rationalism. He asserts (to a great depth of which I cannot appropriately emulate in a single slashdot comment) that rationalism is an incomplete, though not wrong, mindset with which to view the entirety of reality (or existence or whatever). Viewed from that statement, rationality could be seen as one, 'fringe,' subset to the generalized set (which Pirsig asserts is Quality). Granted, it would be a rather large fringe element, as it is directly subservient to Quality, and thus a very broad subset, but it is still a subset and still, therefore, only part of a larger picture.
As for anti-dogmatism, I think that particular ism is an existing hypocrisy. I have met anti-dogmatists who, by all consistent interpretations of what they preach, should kill themselves and their followers. The attitude in general makes for a remarkably amusing self-satire. Nonetheless, I would assert that, yes, anti-dogmatism is, in and of itself, dogmatic and fringey.
In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted
This was always something that bugged me about my faith back when I was a practicing Christian (don't ask me what I am now, I couldn't tell you if I tried). There was always a self-righteous pleasure that Christians seemed to take in being persecuted. If someone called them stupid or illogical, there would be this knowing little smirk that dawned on their face, like they had just caught a glimpse up a girl's skirt. This mindset always seemed decidedly masochistic, in some ways. "Oh, so you want to hurt me? Go ahead, I will revel in it." That attitude always walked hand in hand with the turn-the-other-cheek and love-your-enemies mentalities. Occasionally, it results in a smugness,a sort of, "Why, yes, I AM stupid aren't I? You are so wise to notice!" It might even be called sanctimonious.
When I pieced that together with the ideal that pride is a sin, things kind of made more sense. It's as if the Christian faith feeds off of its own members' self-destruction. The saddest part of it all is that, in the end, I watched that mindset destroy the self-respect and dignity many of my Christian friends. They roam the Earth as hollow shells of their former selves, discussing how content they are to be living a life for God, with almost no head paid towards the very temple that He gave them (see the discussion in the Bible regarding the body as a temple).
That's one of the many reasons I had to walk away from that religion. Watching it destroy the hearts and minds of those I loved, watching those I loved destroy their own hearts and minds in piousness to God, it became nauseating.
I wonder how many folk read these questions and thought to themselves that one answer was better than another answer. For instance,
Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?
Can be effectively answered with a, "Yes, No, or Sometimes," (and probably a few more word-mincing in-between washy answers). I wonder how many folk thought, "Yes! and I am glad I am not one of those people that would answer no." Versus how many people thought, "No! and I am glad I am not one of those people that answered yes."
I wonder, also, if you have any thoughts on whether one answers is, "better," than any other, for any particular question Fantastic Lad. It's always interesting to me read these types of threads and questions on slashdot because many folk here manage to abstract things at a higher level than the immediate quality judgments that are spun out reactionarily (I made a new word!) by various other communities. Furthermore, there is, at least to some extent, some value in the Slashdot culture that gets placed on thinking or responding in a way that is significantly different than other responses (Will this response fulfill that criterion? Who knows!). That said, I always find the, 'deep philosophical and/or introspective questions and responses addictive and intriguing on here. I also love the stubborn ol' fuckers that come out with the harsh realism. "Back in my day asking those kind of questions made you a commie! The only reason the truth would make you uncomfortable is if you're gay! Now get off my lawn I have some fortran to go debug!" (Such lovely passion and endless amusement).
Yet all ramblings aside, I wonder how many people associated any of these questions with quality adjectives like better or worse.
When you figure out how to smack someone over the internet, can you please let the rest of us know? I have a grow list of, 'in-need-of-a-good-smacking,' folks. =)
We're going to start stumbling into an infinite mirror problem and I, for one, don't want my brain to implode from reading slashdot today.
On the other hand, I have a preconceived notion that brain implosion is a bad thing. I might need to come back to this thread after I've figured out how to insert a matter sink into the center of my head....
when we reach that point or singularity where robots can do all that humans can do
If robots will be able to do all that humans can do then it means that they will be able to feel. They will be able to have a conscious that corrects them. They will be able to make emotionally based (as opposed to purely pragmatic) decisions. This seems to be something that a lot of people don't realize. To say that robots can do everything humans can do, it necessarily implies that they will be able to think and act like humans. All stupidity and inspiring awesomeness will be included.
The first time I heard the album Crush, Boyfriend, Heartbreak by The Unlovables (no, it's not Emo) is where I first started to appreciate album art as opposed to individual tracks. That album weaves together a tale of entertaining and heart melting songs written by a young lady that traverses the story of a typical romantic relationship from the woman's point of view. Never before had I heard an album that stitched together a series of tracks so well that it seemed like a book which had been successfully broken down into chapters. For anyone who has not listened to a full album that has touched them (as opposed to just an individual track here and there) I would highly suggest this one.
Then again, I find females whom wear their hearts on their sleeve somewhat endearing.
For some reason, I have an image in my mind of Summer Glau as a Terminator, quietly performing her ballet.
I am interested in your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your news letter.
... ... ...
And possibly any related websites that follow similar themes.
Volunteer effort can help though, a lot. Take, for example, the cubeat programs started by Stanford and Cal Poly, SLO. Those two universities teamed up to create a space-rated, spring driven separation system that is compatible with many modern launch systems (though they most often fly on the Dnepr). Creating that launch vehicle interface system has allowed scores of students around the world to develop very small microsats capable of doing anything from taking a picture of the Earth to prototyping technology. For instance, right now, NASA is helping to work on a cubesat mission that will be used as a proof of concept for solar sail technology. The cubesat architecture, a 10 x 10 x 10 cm bus, allows a cheap and simple satellite design that you can pack a lightweight solar sail into and deploy successfully. Then, based on the amount of acceleration and control yielded by this mission, NASA, and any other large organizations that want to, will be able to look at the data gathered by the mission. This data can be used in studies regarding the scaling of the technology and, one day, may contribute to having a viable large scale solar sail technology on the market.
That said, Cubesat programs at universities all over the world are open sourcing space to volunteer programs. I worked on a design concept, for my undergrad senior project, for a small space based telescope that will be constructed out of off the shelf components. It will send picture data down to various ground stations and the data will be uploaded and accessible via a website for all sorts of public schools, all around the world, to access and learn from. Ideally, it will generate an interest in future generations in space. This design is going on, for free, by graduate and undergraduate students at my Alma Mater. This is all volunteer work and it is making a difference
We are nerds. Space has probably filled the dreams of most slashdotters for years. As long as we view rocket science as a big black box of wonder and awe, then only a few elite nerds will have access to rockets. As soon as we do away with that notion (like the open source movement did away with that attitude regarding computers), space access will start getting cheaper, simpler, and easier.
Don't fear the space industry, become a part of it. The original poster to this thread hit it on the head perfectly. Contribute. Only by doing so will our species conquer the heavens above.
Politics: The fine art of pretending you are important, while you do little more than criticize others for not doing anything.
America started to cede its position as the world power in space exploration as soon as it had buy-in to the system. Every time something goes wrong in a NASA mission and people die, or expensive equipment explodes, it can no longer be a learning process for the organization. Instead, it becomes a negative PR statement and, since American's know their tax dollars pay for it, they bitch like they were just robbed. As a result, budgets are cut. Politicians pretend to be engineers and enforce design decisions through budgets and political grandstanding. NASA becomes scared because, well, little by little it gets killed off. And, as a result, the space program stagnates.
As long as the American public perceives itself to have buy-in or ownership or stock in NASA's going-ons, the organization will remain to risk adverse to do anything truly stupendous anymore. The reason we were able to put a man on the moon in 1969 was because, at the time, the space program was new and mysterious. The American public didn't feel it had much buy-in over the system. All in all, it was a pissing match with the Russians so any ownership the tax payer did feel it had over the program was justifiable as it meant we have bigger space penes than the USSR. Nowadays, though, the organization neither has the freedom or elbow room to do real engineering and take real risks. Without risk, there is no progress.
I don't recall who, or on what thread, but someone posted a comment a couple days back that said something along the lines of, "People used to cheer for bank robbers. It will happen again." I figure this was a reference to John DIllinger and the like. It appears that whoever it was that said that has some decent predictive powers...or at least a good bit of luck every once in awhile.
Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
So far as I understand, lasers require a large amount of energy to produce an appreciable amount of heat. That energy has to come from somewhere, like large solar panels. Large solar panels (or other large power sources) add mass and moment arms to your spacecraft. This requires a complex control system (reaction control wheels and computers) to damp out possible perturbations and maintain an accurate pointing of the spacecraft (crucial if you are going to be shooting high powered lasers at anything). A complex control system requires a powerful computer which eats more power and adds more mass. More mass increases the launch cost. Congratulations, you just designed a multi-billion dollar spacecraft/mission.
Plus if you have a few dozen up there
While buying in bulk does reduce the cost per spacecraft of the mission you are talking about, you can still do a rough multiplier and figure you have spent about $9 billion dollars on spacecraft design and parts alone (and to be honest, that is an incredibly low estimate). Add to that cost another few fudge factors for developing production facilities, testing facilities, paying for workers holidays and hours spent on slashdot. Now you have a terribly expensive mission (at least $10B). That's a lot of coin to come up with.
I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.
These days, for the most part, we do that. Launch trajectories are planned with CCAM (collision and contamination avoidance maneuvers) deorbit profiles or extended orbital profiles. That is to say, spent rocket stages and such tend to be rocketed into escape orbits or back into the atmosphere to breakup. Satellites are a bit harder to do this with, as, sometimes they end up using a bit more fuel than planned and, as such, may not be able to thrust into a proper disposal method. Of course, this is also regulated now so most (if not all) modern missions are required to take this excess fuel margin into account when being designed.
Really, the big problem with the current space junk comes from orbital bodies that are decades old. Before things were regulated heavily in orbital operations, many satellite were just left to decay and breakup in orbit. As a result, we have a lot of detached thermal blankets and other clutter drifting around up there. There is also a large contribution that comes from nations which do not follow modern disposal regulations. The article mentions that China is one of these nations. There are others (such as Iran) but they are not contributing a whole lot because many space programs are still small.
When it comes down to it, spacecraft disposal is a responsibility just like terrestrial recycling. The responsible thing to do is pay more and dispose of things correctly. Unfortunately, we didn't plan ahead from the get go and some people just prefer cutting corners.
"It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past".
Okay, so please explain to me which of these attitudes is being displayed by a company that has negotiated a launch window and has been unable to commit to a particular launch date precisely because they are uncertain of what technical hurdles remain to be overcome. I could, maybe, see that fitting into the definition of propaganda:
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
(courtesy of Merriam Webster)
So, if we assume that Musk, and SpaceX in general, is making statements like those I quoted above because there is an intention to help the company, sure, I guess that fits an attitude of propaganda. Of course, you could equally, and validly, make an assumption that both Musk, and SpaceX's respective engineers, are aware of what sensationalist sharks make up various reporting agencies and, thus, simply want to take preemptive steps to keep their company from being destroyed (or at least damaged) by extraordinarily broad claims.
However, we should probably take into account the entire description of Orwellian that you posted which included this:
It connotes an attitude and a policy of control
Emphasis mine. What I fail to see is how SpaceX, being blatantly honest about where they are in the launch planning and operations stage, is, in any way, trying to implement some policy of control. I suppose you could stretch and say that they are mincing words to control the thoughts and minds and hearts of the public at large, but I fail to see any evidence of that.
When it comes to planning a launch operation, the first step is to decide on the appropriate facility (The Cape, VAFB, Baikonur, etc etc). Once you have done this, you contact said facility and explain to them the target orbit you want to reach and when your best guess is to when you will be ready to do so. The facility (usually, each one is a bit unique) then works with you and your mission Conops team to determine a time period in which you can use their pads. That is to say, they give you some leeway because launches are prone to extraordinary circumstances that can affect a launch (weather, unexpected solar activity, if Bob in the structures group forgot to tighten a screw to the appropriate torque, etc.) Thus, the facility recognizes that you cannot say, with any reasonable certainty, "We will launch on date XX/XX/XXX," until a few weeks (at best) before that date. As such, you keep the launch period fluid, but restrained. That way, if you don't launch exactly when you thought you would, there isn't a breach of contract and you don't screw other companies trying to launch around the same time.
Then, when both your company, and the launch facility, feel that both teams are prepared enough, and have enough information, you commit to some date with some certainty: "We are 70% sure we will launch on this date." At that point, if you miss that date, your launch has slipped. That doesn't denote a failure. That doesn't mean that there are, "tough times ahead," for a company to get, "back on track," despite the recurrence of such headlines being posted by various space reporting agencies. All it means is that something unexpected popped up, or something went unaccounted for and needs to be fixed. So you slip the launch date a bit further into your given launch period, and you try to get things ready by the new date. However, if you fail to do so, and you miss your launch period altogether, then problems do occur. Budgets run over. Contracts need to be renegotiated. And, since most launches preplan their launch period by at least a year, it means that you may not be able to even try launching again for another year. This means to have to refuel tanks, replace batteries, and so on. It i
While we are on the topic of constitutional amendments, can we make one that states that no legislative body can legally pass a law that requires more page space than the constitution itself? I mean really, any law that requires more than a dozen or so pages to describe itself is far too complicated to be beneficial. We may make an exception for budget laws, but I'm kind of skeptical of even that.
I know you're a Brit because you used the word, "Yank" - no one here says that. Few people will even claim to be Yankees.
We laugh at people on the internet for blowing things out of all proportion. It's nicknamed, "a series of tubes," for a reason.
I kept reading your post after I noticed the Score: 1 Flamebait moderation, sometimes they are too silly to pass up. Sorry you tea drinking, haughty twit.
Say American next time. We won't even make fun of you for getting your ass kicked a couple hundred years ago by a bunch of degenerates with pitchforks and your uptight neighbors that have something against shaving.
That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of Dilbert. "We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".
I work in the rocket launch industry. I have supported launch operations. A launch slip occurs when a company says, "We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX," and then later they say, "There was a problem with that date, now we are going to launch on date, YY/YY/YYYY."
SpaceX has not claimed the former. Never have they said, publicly, "We intend to launch in March of 2010." They have said, "NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010. We should launch sometime within that period."
That is a completely different matter altogether. The point of my posting was not to make excuses for Spacex, but to inform people that, currently, they have a launch window, NOT a launch date.
That's pretty Orwellian
To that I respond, with all do respect, "WTF?" You know, Orwellian isn't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation. It actually has a very specific meaning that, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread.
This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.
Yes, because those engineers working in the plants themselves with their fingers on whatever control switches/safety shut offs there are don't have a conscience. In fact, if their plant has an issue and it kills a few folk in the surrounding area, more the the better. I mean, it thins the gene pool right and THOSE people aren't smart nuclear physicists./endsarcasm
Give me a fucking break. Have you ever met an engineer that has worked on a large, industrial scale project that has the potential to kill people? Have you met someone that works at a rocket launch facility? What about the overseer of a car manufacturing plant? Have you met someone that helps manage a hydro electric damn? They tend to be extraordinarily conscientious people who are absolutely terrified at the prospect of something going wrong under their supervision precisely because they don't want some public fiasco (much less the deaths of their neighbors) on their conscience. Keep your trolling nuclear power cover up conspiracy theories in that hole-punctured little brain of yours or get out into the real world and try meeting some of the people that work on these projects. Even those evil middle management types that we love to bitch about here on slashdot tend to display moral compunction for the sole reason that they don't want to get people killed.
I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.
And this little statement just goes to show what a snide little misinformed asshat you are. In practice, nuclear power works just fine and dandy. Ask France, they've been operating on primarily nuclear power for well over a decade without subjecting their citizenry to glowing green blobs of cancer. Keep your biased pseudo-philosophical cliches to yourself and get out of the way while the grown ups go to work to keep their respective industries safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you forgot what is arguably the most valuable profession of all, in any society. The food producers. Whether it is a farmer, a hunter, or a saavy tradesmen that brings food into your society, that is the cornerstone of your civilization. If you don't have some sort of food producer, little else matters. It's possible that doctors are on equal footing with food producers, or, at least, a very close second.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pirsig, has some interesting (and very rational) discussions about the trappings of rationalism. He asserts (to a great depth of which I cannot appropriately emulate in a single slashdot comment) that rationalism is an incomplete, though not wrong, mindset with which to view the entirety of reality (or existence or whatever). Viewed from that statement, rationality could be seen as one, 'fringe,' subset to the generalized set (which Pirsig asserts is Quality). Granted, it would be a rather large fringe element, as it is directly subservient to Quality, and thus a very broad subset, but it is still a subset and still, therefore, only part of a larger picture.
As for anti-dogmatism, I think that particular ism is an existing hypocrisy. I have met anti-dogmatists who, by all consistent interpretations of what they preach, should kill themselves and their followers. The attitude in general makes for a remarkably amusing self-satire. Nonetheless, I would assert that, yes, anti-dogmatism is, in and of itself, dogmatic and fringey.
In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted
This was always something that bugged me about my faith back when I was a practicing Christian (don't ask me what I am now, I couldn't tell you if I tried). There was always a self-righteous pleasure that Christians seemed to take in being persecuted. If someone called them stupid or illogical, there would be this knowing little smirk that dawned on their face, like they had just caught a glimpse up a girl's skirt. This mindset always seemed decidedly masochistic, in some ways. "Oh, so you want to hurt me? Go ahead, I will revel in it." That attitude always walked hand in hand with the turn-the-other-cheek and love-your-enemies mentalities. Occasionally, it results in a smugness,a sort of, "Why, yes, I AM stupid aren't I? You are so wise to notice!" It might even be called sanctimonious.
When I pieced that together with the ideal that pride is a sin, things kind of made more sense. It's as if the Christian faith feeds off of its own members' self-destruction. The saddest part of it all is that, in the end, I watched that mindset destroy the self-respect and dignity many of my Christian friends. They roam the Earth as hollow shells of their former selves, discussing how content they are to be living a life for God, with almost no head paid towards the very temple that He gave them (see the discussion in the Bible regarding the body as a temple).
That's one of the many reasons I had to walk away from that religion. Watching it destroy the hearts and minds of those I loved, watching those I loved destroy their own hearts and minds in piousness to God, it became nauseating.
I also very rarely hear anyone else say "it depends" because not only do lots of folks think they need that definite conclusion,
You don't hang out with very many engineers do you?
Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?
Can be effectively answered with a, "Yes, No, or Sometimes," (and probably a few more word-mincing in-between washy answers). I wonder how many folk thought, "Yes! and I am glad I am not one of those people that would answer no." Versus how many people thought, "No! and I am glad I am not one of those people that answered yes."
I wonder, also, if you have any thoughts on whether one answers is, "better," than any other, for any particular question Fantastic Lad. It's always interesting to me read these types of threads and questions on slashdot because many folk here manage to abstract things at a higher level than the immediate quality judgments that are spun out reactionarily (I made a new word!) by various other communities. Furthermore, there is, at least to some extent, some value in the Slashdot culture that gets placed on thinking or responding in a way that is significantly different than other responses (Will this response fulfill that criterion? Who knows!). That said, I always find the, 'deep philosophical and/or introspective questions and responses addictive and intriguing on here. I also love the stubborn ol' fuckers that come out with the harsh realism. "Back in my day asking those kind of questions made you a commie! The only reason the truth would make you uncomfortable is if you're gay! Now get off my lawn I have some fortran to go debug!" (Such lovely passion and endless amusement).
Yet all ramblings aside, I wonder how many people associated any of these questions with quality adjectives like better or worse.
When you figure out how to smack someone over the internet, can you please let the rest of us know? I have a grow list of, 'in-need-of-a-good-smacking,' folks. =)
We're going to start stumbling into an infinite mirror problem and I, for one, don't want my brain to implode from reading slashdot today.
On the other hand, I have a preconceived notion that brain implosion is a bad thing. I might need to come back to this thread after I've figured out how to insert a matter sink into the center of my head....
Brett: Binary solo! ...
Germaine: 00011 001 00011 001 0 0 0 1 00 1 0 1 0
...
I think this post sounded a lot better in my head...
when we reach that point or singularity where robots can do all that humans can do
If robots will be able to do all that humans can do then it means that they will be able to feel. They will be able to have a conscious that corrects them. They will be able to make emotionally based (as opposed to purely pragmatic) decisions. This seems to be something that a lot of people don't realize. To say that robots can do everything humans can do, it necessarily implies that they will be able to think and act like humans. All stupidity and inspiring awesomeness will be included.
The first time I heard the album Crush, Boyfriend, Heartbreak by The Unlovables (no, it's not Emo) is where I first started to appreciate album art as opposed to individual tracks. That album weaves together a tale of entertaining and heart melting songs written by a young lady that traverses the story of a typical romantic relationship from the woman's point of view. Never before had I heard an album that stitched together a series of tracks so well that it seemed like a book which had been successfully broken down into chapters. For anyone who has not listened to a full album that has touched them (as opposed to just an individual track here and there) I would highly suggest this one.
Then again, I find females whom wear their hearts on their sleeve somewhat endearing.
Program: Destroy all humans!
What? Call me a traitor to my own species, but I, for one, would like a Bender-like friend.
For some reason, I have an image in my mind of Summer Glau as a Terminator, quietly performing her ballet.
I am interested in your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your news letter.
...
...
...
And possibly any related websites that follow similar themes.
Volunteer effort can help though, a lot. Take, for example, the cubeat programs started by Stanford and Cal Poly, SLO. Those two universities teamed up to create a space-rated, spring driven separation system that is compatible with many modern launch systems (though they most often fly on the Dnepr). Creating that launch vehicle interface system has allowed scores of students around the world to develop very small microsats capable of doing anything from taking a picture of the Earth to prototyping technology. For instance, right now, NASA is helping to work on a cubesat mission that will be used as a proof of concept for solar sail technology. The cubesat architecture, a 10 x 10 x 10 cm bus, allows a cheap and simple satellite design that you can pack a lightweight solar sail into and deploy successfully. Then, based on the amount of acceleration and control yielded by this mission, NASA, and any other large organizations that want to, will be able to look at the data gathered by the mission. This data can be used in studies regarding the scaling of the technology and, one day, may contribute to having a viable large scale solar sail technology on the market.
That said, Cubesat programs at universities all over the world are open sourcing space to volunteer programs. I worked on a design concept, for my undergrad senior project, for a small space based telescope that will be constructed out of off the shelf components. It will send picture data down to various ground stations and the data will be uploaded and accessible via a website for all sorts of public schools, all around the world, to access and learn from. Ideally, it will generate an interest in future generations in space. This design is going on, for free, by graduate and undergraduate students at my Alma Mater. This is all volunteer work and it is making a difference
We are nerds. Space has probably filled the dreams of most slashdotters for years. As long as we view rocket science as a big black box of wonder and awe, then only a few elite nerds will have access to rockets. As soon as we do away with that notion (like the open source movement did away with that attitude regarding computers), space access will start getting cheaper, simpler, and easier.
Don't fear the space industry, become a part of it. The original poster to this thread hit it on the head perfectly. Contribute. Only by doing so will our species conquer the heavens above.
Politics: The fine art of pretending you are important, while you do little more than criticize others for not doing anything.
America started to cede its position as the world power in space exploration as soon as it had buy-in to the system. Every time something goes wrong in a NASA mission and people die, or expensive equipment explodes, it can no longer be a learning process for the organization. Instead, it becomes a negative PR statement and, since American's know their tax dollars pay for it, they bitch like they were just robbed. As a result, budgets are cut. Politicians pretend to be engineers and enforce design decisions through budgets and political grandstanding. NASA becomes scared because, well, little by little it gets killed off. And, as a result, the space program stagnates.
As long as the American public perceives itself to have buy-in or ownership or stock in NASA's going-ons, the organization will remain to risk adverse to do anything truly stupendous anymore. The reason we were able to put a man on the moon in 1969 was because, at the time, the space program was new and mysterious. The American public didn't feel it had much buy-in over the system. All in all, it was a pissing match with the Russians so any ownership the tax payer did feel it had over the program was justifiable as it meant we have bigger space penes than the USSR. Nowadays, though, the organization neither has the freedom or elbow room to do real engineering and take real risks. Without risk, there is no progress.
We manage to outfit 747s with lasers that track & destroy ICBMs,
747s have jet engines to produce power. You can't use a jet engine in space.
I don't recall who, or on what thread, but someone posted a comment a couple days back that said something along the lines of, "People used to cheer for bank robbers. It will happen again." I figure this was a reference to John DIllinger and the like. It appears that whoever it was that said that has some decent predictive powers...or at least a good bit of luck every once in awhile.
Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
So far as I understand, lasers require a large amount of energy to produce an appreciable amount of heat. That energy has to come from somewhere, like large solar panels. Large solar panels (or other large power sources) add mass and moment arms to your spacecraft. This requires a complex control system (reaction control wheels and computers) to damp out possible perturbations and maintain an accurate pointing of the spacecraft (crucial if you are going to be shooting high powered lasers at anything). A complex control system requires a powerful computer which eats more power and adds more mass. More mass increases the launch cost. Congratulations, you just designed a multi-billion dollar spacecraft/mission.
Plus if you have a few dozen up there
While buying in bulk does reduce the cost per spacecraft of the mission you are talking about, you can still do a rough multiplier and figure you have spent about $9 billion dollars on spacecraft design and parts alone (and to be honest, that is an incredibly low estimate). Add to that cost another few fudge factors for developing production facilities, testing facilities, paying for workers holidays and hours spent on slashdot. Now you have a terribly expensive mission (at least $10B). That's a lot of coin to come up with.
I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.
Yup. =)
These days, for the most part, we do that. Launch trajectories are planned with CCAM (collision and contamination avoidance maneuvers) deorbit profiles or extended orbital profiles. That is to say, spent rocket stages and such tend to be rocketed into escape orbits or back into the atmosphere to breakup. Satellites are a bit harder to do this with, as, sometimes they end up using a bit more fuel than planned and, as such, may not be able to thrust into a proper disposal method. Of course, this is also regulated now so most (if not all) modern missions are required to take this excess fuel margin into account when being designed.
Really, the big problem with the current space junk comes from orbital bodies that are decades old. Before things were regulated heavily in orbital operations, many satellite were just left to decay and breakup in orbit. As a result, we have a lot of detached thermal blankets and other clutter drifting around up there. There is also a large contribution that comes from nations which do not follow modern disposal regulations. The article mentions that China is one of these nations. There are others (such as Iran) but they are not contributing a whole lot because many space programs are still small.
When it comes down to it, spacecraft disposal is a responsibility just like terrestrial recycling. The responsible thing to do is pay more and dispose of things correctly. Unfortunately, we didn't plan ahead from the get go and some people just prefer cutting corners.
I never noticed the homepage link before. Cheers for that.
I see. That would make more sense. I misunderstood.
"It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past".
Okay, so please explain to me which of these attitudes is being displayed by a company that has negotiated a launch window and has been unable to commit to a particular launch date precisely because they are uncertain of what technical hurdles remain to be overcome. I could, maybe, see that fitting into the definition of propaganda:
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
(courtesy of Merriam Webster)
So, if we assume that Musk, and SpaceX in general, is making statements like those I quoted above because there is an intention to help the company, sure, I guess that fits an attitude of propaganda. Of course, you could equally, and validly, make an assumption that both Musk, and SpaceX's respective engineers, are aware of what sensationalist sharks make up various reporting agencies and, thus, simply want to take preemptive steps to keep their company from being destroyed (or at least damaged) by extraordinarily broad claims.
However, we should probably take into account the entire description of Orwellian that you posted which included this:
It connotes an attitude and a policy of control
Emphasis mine. What I fail to see is how SpaceX, being blatantly honest about where they are in the launch planning and operations stage, is, in any way, trying to implement some policy of control. I suppose you could stretch and say that they are mincing words to control the thoughts and minds and hearts of the public at large, but I fail to see any evidence of that.
When it comes to planning a launch operation, the first step is to decide on the appropriate facility (The Cape, VAFB, Baikonur, etc etc). Once you have done this, you contact said facility and explain to them the target orbit you want to reach and when your best guess is to when you will be ready to do so. The facility (usually, each one is a bit unique) then works with you and your mission Conops team to determine a time period in which you can use their pads. That is to say, they give you some leeway because launches are prone to extraordinary circumstances that can affect a launch (weather, unexpected solar activity, if Bob in the structures group forgot to tighten a screw to the appropriate torque, etc.) Thus, the facility recognizes that you cannot say, with any reasonable certainty, "We will launch on date XX/XX/XXX," until a few weeks (at best) before that date. As such, you keep the launch period fluid, but restrained. That way, if you don't launch exactly when you thought you would, there isn't a breach of contract and you don't screw other companies trying to launch around the same time.
Then, when both your company, and the launch facility, feel that both teams are prepared enough, and have enough information, you commit to some date with some certainty: "We are 70% sure we will launch on this date." At that point, if you miss that date, your launch has slipped. That doesn't denote a failure. That doesn't mean that there are, "tough times ahead," for a company to get, "back on track," despite the recurrence of such headlines being posted by various space reporting agencies. All it means is that something unexpected popped up, or something went unaccounted for and needs to be fixed. So you slip the launch date a bit further into your given launch period, and you try to get things ready by the new date. However, if you fail to do so, and you miss your launch period altogether, then problems do occur. Budgets run over. Contracts need to be renegotiated. And, since most launches preplan their launch period by at least a year, it means that you may not be able to even try launching again for another year. This means to have to refuel tanks, replace batteries, and so on. It i
While we are on the topic of constitutional amendments, can we make one that states that no legislative body can legally pass a law that requires more page space than the constitution itself? I mean really, any law that requires more than a dozen or so pages to describe itself is far too complicated to be beneficial. We may make an exception for budget laws, but I'm kind of skeptical of even that.
I know you're a Brit because you used the word, "Yank" - no one here says that. Few people will even claim to be Yankees.
We laugh at people on the internet for blowing things out of all proportion. It's nicknamed, "a series of tubes," for a reason.
I kept reading your post after I noticed the Score: 1 Flamebait moderation, sometimes they are too silly to pass up. Sorry you tea drinking, haughty twit.
Say American next time. We won't even make fun of you for getting your ass kicked a couple hundred years ago by a bunch of degenerates with pitchforks and your uptight neighbors that have something against shaving.
=P
That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of Dilbert. "We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".
I work in the rocket launch industry. I have supported launch operations. A launch slip occurs when a company says, "We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX," and then later they say, "There was a problem with that date, now we are going to launch on date, YY/YY/YYYY."
SpaceX has not claimed the former. Never have they said, publicly, "We intend to launch in March of 2010." They have said, "NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010. We should launch sometime within that period."
That is a completely different matter altogether. The point of my posting was not to make excuses for Spacex, but to inform people that, currently, they have a launch window, NOT a launch date.
That's pretty Orwellian
To that I respond, with all do respect, "WTF?" You know, Orwellian isn't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation. It actually has a very specific meaning that, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread.
This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.
Yes, because those engineers working in the plants themselves with their fingers on whatever control switches/safety shut offs there are don't have a conscience. In fact, if their plant has an issue and it kills a few folk in the surrounding area, more the the better. I mean, it thins the gene pool right and THOSE people aren't smart nuclear physicists. /endsarcasm
Give me a fucking break. Have you ever met an engineer that has worked on a large, industrial scale project that has the potential to kill people? Have you met someone that works at a rocket launch facility? What about the overseer of a car manufacturing plant? Have you met someone that helps manage a hydro electric damn? They tend to be extraordinarily conscientious people who are absolutely terrified at the prospect of something going wrong under their supervision precisely because they don't want some public fiasco (much less the deaths of their neighbors) on their conscience. Keep your trolling nuclear power cover up conspiracy theories in that hole-punctured little brain of yours or get out into the real world and try meeting some of the people that work on these projects. Even those evil middle management types that we love to bitch about here on slashdot tend to display moral compunction for the sole reason that they don't want to get people killed.
I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.
And this little statement just goes to show what a snide little misinformed asshat you are. In practice, nuclear power works just fine and dandy. Ask France, they've been operating on primarily nuclear power for well over a decade without subjecting their citizenry to glowing green blobs of cancer. Keep your biased pseudo-philosophical cliches to yourself and get out of the way while the grown ups go to work to keep their respective industries safe.