They are smart enough to plan a manned mission to Mars yet stupid enough to not be able to do simple math. Sorry but those two ideas don't go together. Considering the marketing might behind this scam fraud is a much higher probability.
A reference includes a link to the actual information or at least the date and station (NBC has many stations). Saying a news show's name is not a reference.
If there was no money involved I would have no problem with that. There is money involved and it is billions. Spending billions on a few suicides is just moronic.
Can't you see the difference between "the rest of your life" being ten years and it being 70 years? And another thing, if you get to Thailand and change your mind you can go somewhere else. Mars? Not so much.
Every scientist in the field who does not have in interest in Mars 1 who have commented have commented negatively about the project. Take a look at this paper from some MIT students.
The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
You are absolutely correct. The big problem with this scheme is money. They have no viable plan to gather the money to do it. Sorry but selling media rights to watch people die on another planet is not going to bring in the billions of dollars necessary to keep things going. Have you ever heard of a reality show pull in over $4.5billion? No country in their right mind would back this as all it will be is a drain on taxes money. Yes, money is a huge issue and Mars 1 has not solved that problem.
Accusing them right now for scam is lible and insult.
Considering they are no longer even using the cover of contracts with legitimate companies I say now is a great time to call scam.
Many people would be willing to cut decades off their life to advance scientific knowledge and establish a foothold for humanity on another world
Again, too bad that is not what is happening. Scientific knowledge can be advanced much more economically with rovers than with an outpost. It is not a "foothold on another planet" when all the inhabitants will be dead withing 20 years. I doubt there will be any followup missions.
Do you realize how many rover missions to Mars could be done for the cost of having one team of 4 people live in a hole on Mars? Do the math. You would rather spend billions on a pipe dream rather than spend much less for much more scientific understanding.
so setting up a system where there is an even chance for some heroes to live out their lives and explore the planet would be good.
Too bad that is not what is happening here. There is only a very small chance that the plan will ever get people to Mars. There is little chance that there will be enough money to send subsequent supply missions. There is a zero chance that an outpost will survive a few missed supply missions. Anyone sent to Mars will have their lives cut very short. The difference between Mars One and Age of Sail exploration is that there was some expectation that in worst case scenarios the explorers could live off the land. On Mars that is not possible.
If it is ok for someone to climb mount Everest even though several people die every year, but not to explore another planet?
Here are a few differences between Everest expeditions and Mars One. 1. Everest expeditions do not cost billions of dollars. 2. Everest expeditions do not require continued support for decades 3. Everest expeditions do not sidetrack billions of dollars from actually useful endeavors. 4. There is a chance of continuing to live after an Everest expedition. Mar one is a suicide mission. Allowing a few hundred people a year to waste their money and risk their lives is acceptable. More than 4,000 people have climbed Everest and 256 have died. That gives a 94% chance of survival. The Mars expedition has a 0% chance of survival. Bilking millions of people out of "application fees" and other promotions to fund an organization to plan an expedition that the organizers know has no chance of success is not acceptable. Lining the principal's pockets with the money from gullible people is not a noble pursuit.
I don't think we are going to be able to explore other planets in person without higher risks than we have accepted thus far.
When will the news media wake up to the fact that this is a scam and stop giving Mars Zero (zero because they have zero chance of actually going to Mars) free advertising?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs,” according to a 1966 report published in the “Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.”
There is even new evidence that DDT was not the cause of the egg shell thickness problem. It could have been environmental acidification. Even with much lower use of DDT egg shell thickness is still down.
Some studies show that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used.
DDE is the metabolite of DDT that is thought to cause egg shell thinning.
It looks like this might be another correlation is not causation problem.
Calling you on your lack of knowledge is not an insult. It is fact. Then you immediately prove my point.
If you don't use nuclear power (once the power station is built) you lose it.
Nuclear reactors have control rods which are used to regulate the output. You can run a nuclear plant at any percentage of maximum capacity as you want at any time of day or year. Wind and solar are regulated by weather, season and time of day. In effect you get what you get. You really need to understand what dispatchable generation is. Nuclear is dispatchable. Solar/wind is not. Dispatchable power can be regulated to provide power when it is needed. Non-dispatchable power does not have that ability to control output. Nuclear power is very different than solar/wind.
Nuclear power is notoriously difficult to integrate into the grid; you need a lot of fossil fuel or hydro plants to handle the peak load that nuclear cannot handle economically.
Again you are pulling statements out of the air. If your statement is true then how can France produce over 80% of their power using nuclear reactors.
You completely ignore the report about the duck graph. It shows how reliance on PV panels can cause an problem at dusk when PVs stop producing and conventional has to take over. If that slope gets too step then conventional power may not be able to compensate for the rapid loss of PV power.
You really need to know how conventional power works before you comment. No nuclear plant always runs at 100% capacity. There is always a reserve that can be utilized if needed. When one plant goes down other plants increase production to compensate. When the down plant comes back on the other plants decrease output. Solar and wind are usually used completely to their capacity. If you don't use wind/solar power you lose it. Weather/time of day is the governing factor in how much electricity is produced by wind/solar. Human choice governs how much power is produced by nuclear. There is a big difference.
Take a look at this report about the problems with integrating solar into the grid.
Which is all taken into account in the 97% figure. In this case all your doom and gloom scenarios caused a less than 3% decrease in output. Similar things happen to solar and wind installations too. Low wind or high wind days shut down wind farms and clouds decrease solar output. Take a look any any real life production graphs and you will see that, while it is predictable, wind and solar is not dispatchable. One can not turn the sun or wind up when one needs it.
Relative terms can be missleading. The slowest cheetah is still much faster than the fastest turtle. While it may be among the worst nuclear plants it is still extremely reliable. From the article you referenced
Pilgrim performed at nearly 97 percent capacity in 2014
Even variable pitch wind turbines have a max speed. It is called the cutout speed;
Gamesa's wind turbines are equipped with a variable pitch technology. This technology allows for feathering the angle of the blades for each wind speed, whereby controlled extraction is made of the maximum energy in the wind flow. Thus, in below normal conditions the pitch is tailored to derive the maximum energy potential, and in above normal conditions the pitch is altered to derive a controlled amount of energy, so that the machine produces the rated power in a controlled and stable manner up to cut out wind speed.
Problems. 1. Very few cars have swapable batteries because they are difficult to impiment. 2. The card that do have swapable batteries are not standardized. Tesla 3. It is more difficult to design a car with a swapable battery as the swapping mechanism is more complex and the battery can not be buried in the frame. 4. That is not what the article is talking about. 5. The only company that has tried to go public with this technology had gone bankrupt
In reality, under a complete loss of coolant scenario, the fast erosion phase of the concrete basement lasts for about an hour and progresses into about one meter depth, then slows to several centimeters per hour, and stops completely when the corium melt cools below the decomposition temperature of concrete (about 1100 C). Complete melt-through can occur in several days, even through several meters of concrete; the corium then penetrates several meters into the underlying soil, spreads around, cools, and solidifies.
"And if you can't bury them with paperwork, set the price so high they can't afford to request the free information"
The other side of that is "make unreasonable FOIA requests so that when they require reasonable payments publicize it and make the government look bad". I do not believe $1.4/13,000 = $108 per case file is unreasonable. Perhaps instead of asking for 13,000 case files they could narrow their criteria. I think it is funny that when the government does this to someone it is called a fishing expedition but when an organization doe is to the government it is considered valid.
Here is the math. If $1.4 divided by 14 lawyers would be $100k. The poster does not stop there and makes the following statement;
It seems double to quadruple what I would expect.
If $100,000 is quadruple what he would expect then he expects $100k/4 or $25k per lawyer to be expected. The $25k/year would work out to about $12.50/hr.
You also have no idea how lawyers charge out as they need to cover expenses such as insurance, office expenses, staff, etc. Taxes, and medical/retirement benefits and HR costs can double a new lawyer's costs. A lawyer's pay rate is only a small part of the cost.
If if was quadruple the what you expect then you expect a lawyer to work for $12.50 an hour. That is less than minimum wage in many places. So on average they are charging $107 for each case that needs review. Each case could have hundreds of pages. That seems cheap to me. Maybe the EFF should narrow their request to something more reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
They are smart enough to plan a manned mission to Mars yet stupid enough to not be able to do simple math. Sorry but those two ideas don't go together. Considering the marketing might behind this scam fraud is a much higher probability.
A reference includes a link to the actual information or at least the date and station (NBC has many stations). Saying a news show's name is not a reference.
Can you reference that news report? The landing was a failure.
If there was no money involved I would have no problem with that. There is money involved and it is billions. Spending billions on a few suicides is just moronic.
Can't you see the difference between "the rest of your life" being ten years and it being 70 years? And another thing, if you get to Thailand and change your mind you can go somewhere else. Mars? Not so much.
Every scientist in the field who does not have in interest in Mars 1 who have commented have commented negatively about the project. Take a look at this paper from some MIT students.
The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
You are absolutely correct. The big problem with this scheme is money. They have no viable plan to gather the money to do it. Sorry but selling media rights to watch people die on another planet is not going to bring in the billions of dollars necessary to keep things going. Have you ever heard of a reality show pull in over $4.5billion? No country in their right mind would back this as all it will be is a drain on taxes money. Yes, money is a huge issue and Mars 1 has not solved that problem.
Accusing them right now for scam is lible and insult.
Considering they are no longer even using the cover of contracts with legitimate companies I say now is a great time to call scam.
Many people would be willing to cut decades off their life to advance scientific knowledge and establish a foothold for humanity on another world
Again, too bad that is not what is happening. Scientific knowledge can be advanced much more economically with rovers than with an outpost. It is not a "foothold on another planet" when all the inhabitants will be dead withing 20 years. I doubt there will be any followup missions.
Do you realize how many rover missions to Mars could be done for the cost of having one team of 4 people live in a hole on Mars? Do the math. You would rather spend billions on a pipe dream rather than spend much less for much more scientific understanding.
so setting up a system where there is an even chance for some heroes to live out their lives and explore the planet would be good.
Too bad that is not what is happening here. There is only a very small chance that the plan will ever get people to Mars. There is little chance that there will be enough money to send subsequent supply missions. There is a zero chance that an outpost will survive a few missed supply missions. Anyone sent to Mars will have their lives cut very short. The difference between Mars One and Age of Sail exploration is that there was some expectation that in worst case scenarios the explorers could live off the land. On Mars that is not possible.
If it is ok for someone to climb mount Everest even though several people die every year, but not to explore another planet?
Here are a few differences between Everest expeditions and Mars One.
1. Everest expeditions do not cost billions of dollars.
2. Everest expeditions do not require continued support for decades
3. Everest expeditions do not sidetrack billions of dollars from actually useful endeavors.
4. There is a chance of continuing to live after an Everest expedition. Mar one is a suicide mission.
Allowing a few hundred people a year to waste their money and risk their lives is acceptable. More than 4,000 people have climbed Everest and 256 have died. That gives a 94% chance of survival. The Mars expedition has a 0% chance of survival. Bilking millions of people out of "application fees" and other promotions to fund an organization to plan an expedition that the organizers know has no chance of success is not acceptable. Lining the principal's pockets with the money from gullible people is not a noble pursuit.
I don't think we are going to be able to explore other planets in person without higher risks than we have accepted thus far.
Certain death is a very high risk indeed.
Zero times any number is still zero
When will the news media wake up to the fact that this is a scam and stop giving Mars Zero (zero because they have zero chance of actually going to Mars) free advertising?
Take a look
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs,” according to a 1966 report published in the “Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.”
Or because or does not work and is toxic.
Just watch the video. It has all the hallmarks of a scam. If it works do a real trial instead of posting unverified videos.
There is even new evidence that DDT was not the cause of the egg shell thickness problem. It could have been environmental acidification. Even with much lower use of DDT egg shell thickness is still down.
Some studies show that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used.
DDE is the metabolite of DDT that is thought to cause egg shell thinning.
It looks like this might be another correlation is not causation problem.
Insults do not help your arguments.
Calling you on your lack of knowledge is not an insult. It is fact. Then you immediately prove my point.
If you don't use nuclear power (once the power station is built) you lose it.
Nuclear reactors have control rods which are used to regulate the output. You can run a nuclear plant at any percentage of maximum capacity as you want at any time of day or year. Wind and solar are regulated by weather, season and time of day. In effect you get what you get. You really need to understand what dispatchable generation is. Nuclear is dispatchable. Solar/wind is not. Dispatchable power can be regulated to provide power when it is needed. Non-dispatchable power does not have that ability to control output. Nuclear power is very different than solar/wind.
Nuclear power is notoriously difficult to integrate into the grid; you need a lot of fossil fuel or hydro plants to handle the peak load that nuclear cannot handle economically.
Again you are pulling statements out of the air. If your statement is true then how can France produce over 80% of their power using nuclear reactors.
You completely ignore the report about the duck graph. It shows how reliance on PV panels can cause an problem at dusk when PVs stop producing and conventional has to take over. If that slope gets too step then conventional power may not be able to compensate for the rapid loss of PV power.
You really need to know how conventional power works before you comment. No nuclear plant always runs at 100% capacity. There is always a reserve that can be utilized if needed. When one plant goes down other plants increase production to compensate. When the down plant comes back on the other plants decrease output. Solar and wind are usually used completely to their capacity. If you don't use wind/solar power you lose it. Weather/time of day is the governing factor in how much electricity is produced by wind/solar. Human choice governs how much power is produced by nuclear. There is a big difference.
Take a look at this report about the problems with integrating solar into the grid.
Which is all taken into account in the 97% figure. In this case all your doom and gloom scenarios caused a less than 3% decrease in output. Similar things happen to solar and wind installations too. Low wind or high wind days shut down wind farms and clouds decrease solar output. Take a look any any real life production graphs and you will see that, while it is predictable, wind and solar is not dispatchable. One can not turn the sun or wind up when one needs it.
Relative terms can be missleading. The slowest cheetah is still much faster than the fastest turtle. While it may be among the worst nuclear plants it is still extremely reliable. From the article you referenced
Pilgrim performed at nearly 97 percent capacity in 2014
Even variable pitch wind turbines have a max speed. It is called the cutout speed;
Gamesa's wind turbines are equipped with a variable pitch technology. This technology allows for feathering the angle of the blades for each wind speed, whereby controlled extraction is made of the maximum energy in the wind flow. Thus, in below normal conditions the pitch is tailored to derive the maximum energy potential, and in above normal conditions the pitch is altered to derive a controlled amount of energy, so that the machine produces the rated power in a controlled and stable manner up to cut out wind speed.
Problems.
1. Very few cars have swapable batteries because they are difficult to impiment.
2. The card that do have swapable batteries are not standardized. Tesla
3. It is more difficult to design a car with a swapable battery as the swapping mechanism is more complex and the battery can not be buried in the frame.
4. That is not what the article is talking about.
5. The only company that has tried to go public with this technology had gone bankrupt
Not really.
In reality, under a complete loss of coolant scenario, the fast erosion phase of the concrete basement lasts for about an hour and progresses into about one meter depth, then slows to several centimeters per hour, and stops completely when the corium melt cools below the decomposition temperature of concrete (about 1100 C). Complete melt-through can occur in several days, even through several meters of concrete; the corium then penetrates several meters into the underlying soil, spreads around, cools, and solidifies.
"And if you can't bury them with paperwork, set the price so high they can't afford to request the free information"
The other side of that is "make unreasonable FOIA requests so that when they require reasonable payments publicize it and make the government look bad". I do not believe $1.4/13,000 = $108 per case file is unreasonable. Perhaps instead of asking for 13,000 case files they could narrow their criteria. I think it is funny that when the government does this to someone it is called a fishing expedition but when an organization doe is to the government it is considered valid.
You didn't read what I was replying to.
Here is the math. If $1.4 divided by 14 lawyers would be $100k. The poster does not stop there and makes the following statement;
It seems double to quadruple what I would expect.
If $100,000 is quadruple what he would expect then he expects $100k/4 or $25k per lawyer to be expected. The $25k/year would work out to about $12.50/hr.
You also have no idea how lawyers charge out as they need to cover expenses such as insurance, office expenses, staff, etc. Taxes, and medical/retirement benefits and HR costs can double a new lawyer's costs. A lawyer's pay rate is only a small part of the cost.
First-stage boosters normally just slam into the Atlantic and sink.
Now they bounce off a barge, explode, slam into the ocean and sink. Such an improvement.
If if was quadruple the what you expect then you expect a lawyer to work for $12.50 an hour. That is less than minimum wage in many places. So on average they are charging $107 for each case that needs review. Each case could have hundreds of pages. That seems cheap to me. Maybe the EFF should narrow their request to something more reasonable.
Sorry, I set them in the wrong place at the start so I moved them. According to the GP there are at least 25,00 per year.