Then they need the tools and factories to build the materials for that.
Things wear out and chemicals are used up. If we have to continually send supplies to Mars they are not self sufficient. That polymer door seal that wears out needs to be replaced somehow. That suit that is abraded every time it leaves the hardened shelter will eventually need to be replaced. Without the ability to replace things like that on Mars an outpost will continue to be dependent on Earth. There is a big difference between Earth and Mars. On Earth, if something does not work exactly right one can make do. On Mars, if certain things do not work exactly right people die.
How heavy is an aluminum refinery? How heavy is mining equipment needed to extract the ore from the ground? How heavy are the precision machines needed to create high tolerance parts? We are talking thousands of tons of equipment here. We have enough trouble soft landing a rover on Mars let alone a factory. And that is just one material. What about polymers, fabrics, chemical fertilizers, CO2 scrubbers, alloy materials such as chromium and molybdenum, steel, rare earths, etc. Then there are all the people needed to run these factories. It looks like you don't realize the number of people and huge amounts of equipment needed to make things here on Earth. It is not easy to transplant all that to another planet.
It would take a tens, if not hundreds, of trillion dollars to shoot that amount of stuff into space and yes, we lack those funds.
However that is fully in our technological capabilities.
It is also fully in our technological capabilities to have high speed rail service between every major city in the US but we don't do that either. Just because we can do something does not mean it is economically viable, or even a good idea, to do it.
The people of Earth need to concentrate on fixing our problems rather than be distracted by pipe dreams.
The cost if getting a team of humans on the ground could be 1000 times the cost of sending a go cart sized rover. We could send 500 probes and still save money. Also the human could only spend a few hours per day outside in the Martian atmosphere before having to return to the radiation hardened shelter. So yes there would be one very well surveyed spot on Mars but not much more. The multiple probes could cover much more ground.
I am not saying iy will never happen but limping out there with today's technology is a waste of money.
The goal may be self sufficiency but it is unattainable with current technology. There are too many parts to a habitat that can wear out and can not be produced on Mars.
Wrong. We do not have the technology to turn energy into matter yet. When they need a new seal for the door (or pretty much any other critical part that can wear out) it is going to come from Earth and has nothing to do with how much energy they can produce.
That would be true if we had the technology to create a self sufficient colony on Mars. We do not have that technology yet. At best an outpost on Mars would last a few years if a catastrophe wiped out Earth. The less than 100 people that we can afford to support on Mars is not a viable gene pool. Mars is not a "life boat". I agree we need to plan but throwing money into a project that has no chance of becoming self sufficient is not progress.
To take your backup analogy a step further,.why make backups when all the computers that would use them will have been destroyed?
Show me any series that makes billions of dollars. The series probably would not even pay for the interest on the capitol expended to get the players to Mars.
I disagree. To me it means giving people an opportunity to something they want to do that has never been done before. It is a sacrifice if you don't want to do it but see it as a better thing for other people. I see little or no benefit from an outpost on Mars. To me it is just another pit to throw money into. My question is what will they do when they get to Mars? All I see them as is glorified tourists supported by the hard working people of Earth. The scientific discoveries can be done much less expensively with probes from Earth. People do not need to be on planet.
To me, a colony is a settlement that will become self sufficient through production of goods or through trade. Since transporting things back from Mars far outweighs the value anything on Mars and the fact that there will always need for parts and supplies that can not be produced on Mars I do not see that happening soon. Another issue is the size of the settlement. Since the size is dependent on the pipeline of goods from earth it will not be large for a long time. Due to size restriction and continued dependence on Earth the settlement on Mars best fits the definition of an outpost.
I was hoping for something spectacular or at least interesting when I watched the JPL video. All that happened was it fired a few thrusters remotely. That's like claiming to remotely drive a car by turning the wipers on and off.
Trevon was totally unarmed. So a picture of a gun-toting anything would be ratcheting up the emotional level.
Fine, make it a tattooed Crypts thug posing all tough and making gang signs.
and when you have officers fanning out in assault formation,
That just shows how little you know about police tactics. Fanning out and surrounding a house is containment tactics. Assault tactics are what were shown in the picture. They surround a house in case someone runs. Would you want to be the guy explaining to the public that you almost captured the bomber who was planning to kill people but let him get away because you didn't cover the back door?
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but actions speak louder still.
And their actions were to enter the house with permission, have a pleasant conversation and leave. No weapons were drawn.
he was much older and larger when he died, and that's also playing around with emotional levels.
Both are wrong. Why are you defending inaccurate reporting? Do you like your views to be influenced by lies?
Inaccurate reporting is still inaccurate reporting. Would you be saying the same thing if they had plastered a picture of a tattooed, gun toting Cryp on an article about Trevon? There is a huge difference between casually clothed men with holstered pistols and heavily armoured men with assault rifles at the ready. If you can't see how portraying the former as if it were the later is inaccurate and inflammatory you have a big problem.
Take a look at the picture in the article and compare it with the actual description of what happened;
Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two toward the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.
There was no assault team. The wife and children were not present. The picture make it look like the police terrorized an innocent family when the truth is far different.
I hate inflammatory reporting and this is a prime example of it. The story is bad enough as it is without adding falsehoods.
you still ask some groups of riders to subsidize other groups of riders, for no particularly good reason.
Much like urban telephone customers subsidize rural telephone customers. That is why monopolies are granted. We grant you a monopoly but you have to do other things to make up for it. Having taxis available all the time seems a pretty good reason to me.
If you want low-cost or free service for the disabled or seniors, that can be provided or subsidized directly from tax funds
I never said free or low cost. I am talking about having equipped taxis available at all. Have you ever tried the government services? You have to book days ahead and give them a lot of leeway in timing.
And discrimination in business is generally illegal;
If there are hundreds of different "taxi companies" and a complaint is made how do you find the culprit. Fewer companies means better enforcement.
Re:And when are the Hellfire missles coming?
on
FAA OKs US UAVs
·
· Score: 1
If it is passive, what does it sense?
Re:Is there any Value Add to them
on
FAA OKs US UAVs
·
· Score: 1
These vehicles have similar fuel constraints so no gains in longer survey times
Care to cite anything to back this up? Not having a pilot on the aircraft is a weight savings and therefore a structural savings which makes a bigger weight savings which means less fuel used. There is also the weight saving of all the instruments that are not necessary. Sire there are radios needed but they are in a regular aircraft too.
Maintenance costs are lower, No need for improved airstrips. Less fuel required therefore less costs and transport issue.. Can operate from regular ships using catapult launch and net recovery Non specialists can be trained to fly the drones. For long duration flights pilots can be swapped without landing.
The thing is that to take up a pilot and an observer requires a much bigger aircraft than an RC.
One definite use is fire suppression observation flights. Those pilots get into some hairy situations.
Re:And when are the Hellfire missles coming?
on
FAA OKs US UAVs
·
· Score: 1
If they were concerned with mid air collisions they would not certify a device with a 16,000 foot service ceiling.
Most mid air collisions occur at much lower altitudes. There is also a difference between what something is capable of doing and what something is authorized to do. By your logic the government would never license a street vehicle that could go over 80 miles an hour.
they are limiting the SIZE to something that is likely to be fairly inconsequential if hits a building or a passenger plane
Considering birds ingested into jet engines have brought down aircraft the drone does not have to be that large.
they can then authorize the military grade drones
I have no problem with military grade drones. The issue is military armed drones and I don't see them ever being in common use.
Re:And when are the Hellfire missles coming?
on
FAA OKs US UAVs
·
· Score: 1
It's only a matter of time before UAVs are free to fire on civilians, so, at some point, the Hellfire missiles will also be OK'ed by the FAA.
So why haven't they equipped their helicopters with Hellfires yet? They have had the capabilities for decades. You logic is flawed.
Are you a psychic that you know for certainty what will happen years if not decades down the line? Remember your diagnosis was "psychotic" not "psychic". Tou have watched "Blue Thunder" too many times.
Re:And when are the Hellfire missles coming?
on
FAA OKs US UAVs
·
· Score: 1
law enforcement and oil companies are being allowed access to airspace,so far
FTFY. It is a new program and the FAA is trying to avoid mid air collisions. They are working on the rules.
Misconduct cases involving TSA employees -- everything from being late to skipping crucial security protocols -- rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012.
I would bet that any company as large as the TSA would be happy to have only 3,408 misconduct cases. There are about 55,600 TSA employees.
About a third of the cases involved being late or not reporting for work, the largest single category of offenses.
That would be about 1100 shift late or missed. Considering that there are 55,000 employees * 5 shifts per week * 48 working weeks/year = 1.32M shifts per year that would mean that the late/absentee rate was 0.008%. Any company would love that late/absentee rate. Most companies have rates upwards of 10%.
About a quarter involved screening and security failures -- including sleeping on the job -- or neglect of duty offenses that resulted in losses or careless inspections.
So about 852 incidents are security related. That would be 1 incident for every 64 employees. Considering that most offenders will repeat and some of the incidents are mistakes rather than willful that is less that 1% of employees being an issue.
TSA employees are humans not robots ans they screw up some times; give them a break.
The numbers rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012. That is an increase of 717 incidents. That is about 2 more incidents per day. Not bad for a company that has 55,000 employees covering hundreds of locations. That's the problem with small numbers; even small increases seem big.
people who ride cheaply during normal hours should greatly subsidize people who want a ride at all at 2am.
FTFY. By allowing the local monopoly on taxis parts of which are profitable such as fares to the airport the government also requires the taxi companies to provide services that are not profitable. These services include low hours availability, bad weather availability, services to seniors, services to the disabled, bans on profiling due to races, gender, etc. If unregulated companies just take the profitable rides there is no money to pay for the less profitable ones.
In most cases ride share drivers do it as a way to occasionally make some quick cash. One hour there may be many drivers available. A couple hours later there may be almost none. Part of the regulations is the certainty that there will be cabs on the road at all times. That can not be said for ride share programs.
None of the reasons are of any value to me. If I want the safety of a regulated taxi, I'll take one. If I am willing to accept the risk of taking an unregulated one, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?
When those regulated taxis have been undercut and run out of business by the unregulated taxis your choice will be gone. These unregulated taxis will again try to undercut each other until there is no safe taxis available at all. There will also be fewer available in bad weather late at night. Fewer taxis equipped to handle mobility impaired people.
Slashdot Mirror
Then they need the tools and factories to build the materials for that.
Things wear out and chemicals are used up. If we have to continually send supplies to Mars they are not self sufficient. That polymer door seal that wears out needs to be replaced somehow. That suit that is abraded every time it leaves the hardened shelter will eventually need to be replaced. Without the ability to replace things like that on Mars an outpost will continue to be dependent on Earth. There is a big difference between Earth and Mars. On Earth, if something does not work exactly right one can make do. On Mars, if certain things do not work exactly right people die.
How heavy is an aluminum refinery? How heavy is mining equipment needed to extract the ore from the ground? How heavy are the precision machines needed to create high tolerance parts? We are talking thousands of tons of equipment here. We have enough trouble soft landing a rover on Mars let alone a factory. And that is just one material. What about polymers, fabrics, chemical fertilizers, CO2 scrubbers, alloy materials such as chromium and molybdenum, steel, rare earths, etc. Then there are all the people needed to run these factories. It looks like you don't realize the number of people and huge amounts of equipment needed to make things here on Earth. It is not easy to transplant all that to another planet.
It would take a tens, if not hundreds, of trillion dollars to shoot that amount of stuff into space and yes, we lack those funds.
However that is fully in our technological capabilities.
It is also fully in our technological capabilities to have high speed rail service between every major city in the US but we don't do that either. Just because we can do something does not mean it is economically viable, or even a good idea, to do it.
The people of Earth need to concentrate on fixing our problems rather than be distracted by pipe dreams.
The cost if getting a team of humans on the ground could be 1000 times the cost of sending a go cart sized rover. We could send 500 probes and still save money. Also the human could only spend a few hours per day outside in the Martian atmosphere before having to return to the radiation hardened shelter. So yes there would be one very well surveyed spot on Mars but not much more. The multiple probes could cover much more ground.
I am not saying iy will never happen but limping out there with today's technology is a waste of money.
The goal may be self sufficiency but it is unattainable with current technology. There are too many parts to a habitat that can wear out and can not be produced on Mars.
Wrong. We do not have the technology to turn energy into matter yet. When they need a new seal for the door (or pretty much any other critical part that can wear out) it is going to come from Earth and has nothing to do with how much energy they can produce.
That would be true if we had the technology to create a self sufficient colony on Mars. We do not have that technology yet. At best an outpost on Mars would last a few years if a catastrophe wiped out Earth. The less than 100 people that we can afford to support on Mars is not a viable gene pool. Mars is not a "life boat". I agree we need to plan but throwing money into a project that has no chance of becoming self sufficient is not progress.
To take your backup analogy a step further,.why make backups when all the computers that would use them will have been destroyed?
Show me any series that makes billions of dollars. The series probably would not even pay for the interest on the capitol expended to get the players to Mars.
A one-way trip to Mars means sacrifice,
I disagree. To me it means giving people an opportunity to something they want to do that has never been done before. It is a sacrifice if you don't want to do it but see it as a better thing for other people. I see little or no benefit from an outpost on Mars. To me it is just another pit to throw money into. My question is what will they do when they get to Mars? All I see them as is glorified tourists supported by the hard working people of Earth. The scientific discoveries can be done much less expensively with probes from Earth. People do not need to be on planet.
To me, a colony is a settlement that will become self sufficient through production of goods or through trade. Since transporting things back from Mars far outweighs the value anything on Mars and the fact that there will always need for parts and supplies that can not be produced on Mars I do not see that happening soon. Another issue is the size of the settlement. Since the size is dependent on the pipeline of goods from earth it will not be large for a long time. Due to size restriction and continued dependence on Earth the settlement on Mars best fits the definition of an outpost.
Will Buckwald steal from Holtz too?
I was hoping for something spectacular or at least interesting when I watched the JPL video. All that happened was it fired a few thrusters remotely. That's like claiming to remotely drive a car by turning the wipers on and off.
Trevon was totally unarmed. So a picture of a gun-toting anything would be ratcheting up the emotional level.
Fine, make it a tattooed Crypts thug posing all tough and making gang signs.
and when you have officers fanning out in assault formation,
That just shows how little you know about police tactics. Fanning out and surrounding a house is containment tactics. Assault tactics are what were shown in the picture. They surround a house in case someone runs. Would you want to be the guy explaining to the public that you almost captured the bomber who was planning to kill people but let him get away because you didn't cover the back door?
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but actions speak louder still.
And their actions were to enter the house with permission, have a pleasant conversation and leave. No weapons were drawn.
he was much older and larger when he died, and that's also playing around with emotional levels.
Both are wrong. Why are you defending inaccurate reporting? Do you like your views to be influenced by lies?
That is an assumption that is not supported by the information in the study. All your statistics are non-existent.
Whereas your problem is assuming they have a 100% detection rate of misconduct
I don't assume anything. I just look at the numbers.
Detection rates are more likely 1%,
Do you have any evidence to support this or is it just an assumption based on your bias?
Inaccurate reporting is still inaccurate reporting. Would you be saying the same thing if they had plastered a picture of a tattooed, gun toting Cryp on an article about Trevon? There is a huge difference between casually clothed men with holstered pistols and heavily armoured men with assault rifles at the ready. If you can't see how portraying the former as if it were the later is inaccurate and inflammatory you have a big problem.
Take a look at the picture in the article and compare it with the actual description of what happened;
Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two toward the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.
There was no assault team. The wife and children were not present. The picture make it look like the police terrorized an innocent family when the truth is far different.
I hate inflammatory reporting and this is a prime example of it. The story is bad enough as it is without adding falsehoods.
you still ask some groups of riders to subsidize other groups of riders, for no particularly good reason.
Much like urban telephone customers subsidize rural telephone customers. That is why monopolies are granted. We grant you a monopoly but you have to do other things to make up for it. Having taxis available all the time seems a pretty good reason to me.
If you want low-cost or free service for the disabled or seniors, that can be provided or subsidized directly from tax funds
I never said free or low cost. I am talking about having equipped taxis available at all. Have you ever tried the government services? You have to book days ahead and give them a lot of leeway in timing.
And discrimination in business is generally illegal;
If there are hundreds of different "taxi companies" and a complaint is made how do you find the culprit. Fewer companies means better enforcement.
If it is passive, what does it sense?
These vehicles have similar fuel constraints so no gains in longer survey times
Care to cite anything to back this up? Not having a pilot on the aircraft is a weight savings and therefore a structural savings which makes a bigger weight savings which means less fuel used. There is also the weight saving of all the instruments that are not necessary. Sire there are radios needed but they are in a regular aircraft too.
Maintenance costs are lower,
No need for improved airstrips.
Less fuel required therefore less costs and transport issue..
Can operate from regular ships using catapult launch and net recovery
Non specialists can be trained to fly the drones.
For long duration flights pilots can be swapped without landing.
The thing is that to take up a pilot and an observer requires a much bigger aircraft than an RC.
One definite use is fire suppression observation flights. Those pilots get into some hairy situations.
If they were concerned with mid air collisions they would not certify a device with a 16,000 foot service ceiling.
Most mid air collisions occur at much lower altitudes. There is also a difference between what something is capable of doing and what something is authorized to do. By your logic the government would never license a street vehicle that could go over 80 miles an hour.
they are limiting the SIZE to something that is likely to be fairly inconsequential if hits a building or a passenger plane
Considering birds ingested into jet engines have brought down aircraft the drone does not have to be that large.
they can then authorize the military grade drones
I have no problem with military grade drones. The issue is military armed drones and I don't see them ever being in common use.
It's only a matter of time before UAVs are free to fire on civilians, so, at some point, the Hellfire missiles will also be OK'ed by the FAA.
So why haven't they equipped their helicopters with Hellfires yet? They have had the capabilities for decades. You logic is flawed.
Are you a psychic that you know for certainty what will happen years if not decades down the line? Remember your diagnosis was "psychotic" not "psychic". Tou have watched "Blue Thunder" too many times.
law enforcement and oil companies are being allowed access to airspace,so far
FTFY. It is a new program and the FAA is trying to avoid mid air collisions. They are working on the rules.
I think we could probably just say this across the board in humanity
FTFY. TSA employees are human too.
Misconduct cases involving TSA employees -- everything from being late to skipping crucial security protocols -- rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012.
I would bet that any company as large as the TSA would be happy to have only 3,408 misconduct cases. There are about 55,600 TSA employees.
About a third of the cases involved being late or not reporting for work, the largest single category of offenses.
That would be about 1100 shift late or missed. Considering that there are 55,000 employees * 5 shifts per week * 48 working weeks/year = 1.32M shifts per year that would mean that the late/absentee rate was 0.008%. Any company would love that late/absentee rate. Most companies have rates upwards of 10%.
About a quarter involved screening and security failures -- including sleeping on the job -- or neglect of duty offenses that resulted in losses or careless inspections.
So about 852 incidents are security related. That would be 1 incident for every 64 employees. Considering that most offenders will repeat and some of the incidents are mistakes rather than willful that is less that 1% of employees being an issue.
TSA employees are humans not robots ans they screw up some times; give them a break.
The numbers rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012. That is an increase of 717 incidents. That is about 2 more incidents per day. Not bad for a company that has 55,000 employees covering hundreds of locations. That's the problem with small numbers; even small increases seem big.
people who ride cheaply during normal hours should greatly subsidize people who want a ride at all at 2am.
FTFY. By allowing the local monopoly on taxis parts of which are profitable such as fares to the airport the government also requires the taxi companies to provide services that are not profitable. These services include low hours availability, bad weather availability, services to seniors, services to the disabled, bans on profiling due to races, gender, etc. If unregulated companies just take the profitable rides there is no money to pay for the less profitable ones.
In most cases ride share drivers do it as a way to occasionally make some quick cash. One hour there may be many drivers available. A couple hours later there may be almost none. Part of the regulations is the certainty that there will be cabs on the road at all times. That can not be said for ride share programs.
None of the reasons are of any value to me. If I want the safety of a regulated taxi, I'll take one. If I am willing to accept the risk of taking an unregulated one, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?
When those regulated taxis have been undercut and run out of business by the unregulated taxis your choice will be gone. These unregulated taxis will again try to undercut each other until there is no safe taxis available at all. There will also be fewer available in bad weather late at night. Fewer taxis equipped to handle mobility impaired people.