Got anyone in the more recent past? Like, say, in the past decade or two?
Back then, three letter agencies and even companies hired criminals, until they noticed that a criminal isn't suddenly turning around just because you pay him to do so.
The first thing you get asked for in ANY IT security related job is a police record. And if there's more on it than a parking violation, don't bother to apply, you just waste your, and my, time.
Investment bankers noticed that they can be replaced by a very small script and try to fearmonger the world into letting them continue to leech off the labor of people doing actual work.
Actually, he paid quite handsomely. You do want to pay the people who could easily blow up your operation without leaving a trace well so they want your operation to continue. Pure self interest.
Nope. Sorry to burst that bubble, but a criminal record is not a letter of recommendation.
Or, in the words of an ex-boss of mine "I don't need people with a criminal record. People who don't know how not to get caught are bad for the company reputation".
Dude, I live over here in "socialist" Europe where we have all the perks you're talking about and more. And even I, as someone who earns quite a bit of money, don't pay 30% in taxes.
In other words, if you pay 30% tax and do NOT get that in return... well, everyone has the government they deserve.
The problem is that the incentive to get out of bed in the morning and contribute something positive to the world is gone. Why bother when there is nothing to be gained that way?
The old American Dream was "work hard, earn money, put away a bit, invest wisely and soon you, too, can be rich". It's over. People have learned that they don't earn enough money to put away anything.
The new American Dream is "Working doesn't get you anywhere. Run into some rich guy's car and sue the pants off him, or hope to win the lottery".
Worked great for Western Germany 'til they foolishly reunited with the communist Eastern part. 'til then they had one of the strongest economies of the planet, not even half a century after losing a totally crippling war.
The system we're suffering under has about as much to do with Capitalism as the Soviet Union had to do with Socialism. Yeah, it's called that, but just calling shit butter and showing that it spreads well on bread doesn't change its taste.
You don't include fuel generating equipment with every mining vehicle. Once probes find an asteroid with interesting ore and ice you send a refueling ship. When it reports back that its operational and successfully making fuel you can start sending mining vehicles.
Ok, so an ore mining ship must in every case include enough fuel for trip and return trip, because you do not know whether and how much fuel you can actually get from the asteroid at hand. Again, you are trying to match your speed to an asteroid that's on a (for all practical reasons) hyperbolic path, with its perigee (also known as the point in a flight path where you do NOT want to make speed adjustments if you can at all avoid it) near the point of intercept. AND then return from this hyperbolic flight path to one that takes you to Earth's orbit (or the moon, doesn't really matter that much at this scale). Do you have a faint idea how much dV we are talking here? And how much fuel this would take?
H and O are not the only possible fuels. Asteroids can be rich with all sort of compounds. Also the power source of the refueling ship need not be solar, nuclear is another option.
H and O are not the only options. But the only feasible ones. You can pretty much forget all hypergolic fuels. You won't find elementary oxygen or any other sensible oxidizer in another form. What's left is electrolysis of water. If you have any other ideas, please present them, I can't think of any. Concerning energy, yes, you could of course use radioisotope batteries. But they're even less efficient than solar panels and their general power output is way lower. At least I hope you were referring to that and didn't really propose sending a nuclear reactor into space. Because then we really ARE back at the weight problem.
Lifting the lunar equipment from earth is a one-time thing, and all the infrastructure need not necessarily be lifted. A bootstrapping approach can be used. Equipment for a small scale operation can be lifted to manufacture the equipment for a large scape operation using local resources. The mining and refueling vehicles could be made from lunar resources.
Again, you do remember the Saturn V? Unless what you want to take to the moon is incredibly light, a feature manufacturing equipment rarely has, especially at the scale you have in mind, we are talking about an amount of material and fuel that makes the proposal ridiculous to say the least.
Feasability: Miners have been separating ore from non-ore with picks, hammers, chisels, etc for centuries.
Correct. Combined with
I'm referring to ore.
it means you're transporting about 50-80% (depending on the mineral you're after, or, more properly, able to get, since it's kinda hard to order the kind of asteroid you currently need) slag. Taking into account that certain metals can be found compounded with others and that you actually want all of them. I dunno, but "efficient" isn't exactly the word that comes to my mind with those amounts.
Pick the right asteroid and there is fuel at the asteroid.
Now I'm curious. What fuel would that be? It cannot be hypergolic, for obvious reasons, so... hydrogen? Kinda hard to mine, even in space this close to the sun it's a gas. Besides, where should the oxygen come from because you need that, too. But the asteroid could contain water, so we could use energy (from solar cells) to split up water into hydrogen and oxygen and store the result. That would work. If, and only if, you find a way to ignite it. Because that's something we didn't even touch yet, very, very few rockets are capable of multiple ignitions. That's actually a nontrivial issue to solve.
There's also that problem with electrolysis. It takes quite a bit of energy to do it on a scale that would be required for a rocket that's supposed to transport ore. With a projected SI of about 500 (let's be generous) for H2/O2 rockets, I leave it to you to determine just how much fuel would be needed to get to an asteroid on a hyperbolic trajectory, mine it and get back onto a trajectory for lunar orbit... that could maybe not be doable in the rather little time we'd have before the dV required for return becomes kinda ridiculous. Then there's that pesky problem of keeping H2 cold and getting it fed to the engine while essentially weightless... but maybe you have a completely different kind of fuel in mind, I'd really like to know.
The ore is coming from an asteroid in a near-zero G environment, not from the earth's surface.
At one point in time you still have to at the very least transport your asteroid miner to the orbit and your refinery to the moon, and whatever that moon-based equipment is going to weigh will need approximately 100 times its weight in a rocket getting it there. And we didn't even talk about that part yet, and neither about getting the assembled stuff back into Earth's orbit, because that's why we do all this in the first place.
Yes, but there better already be a nuclear war going when they do, because one of these rockets dropping its payload prematurely due to a fault would probably start one.
2 things you should probably know: Man-rated != manned. It means that these rockets are built to higher level security specifications to make accidental rapid unplanned disassembly less likely. Which you want if the payload is humans. Or a bomb that can potentially make large portions of your (or, diplomatically worse, another) country uninhabitable for the next couple dozens generations.
Second, "high" doesn't mean "orbit". To get into an orbit, you needn't go up, you have to go fast sideways. The only reason we go up first is that it's kinda hard to go fast in the thick atmosphere our planet has. Altitude only matters because of the atmosphere, not because that's a requirement for an orbit. Without that pesky air around us, you could orbit the planet safely at about 10km altitude.
Again, you don't just send up a warhead. You have to send up a warhead AND what's required to get it back down to earth. Preferably in a controlled fashion because, well, if it comes down in the wrong place, this just MIGHT cause a bit of a diplomatic issue.
And then there's the fact that everything you send up there WILL come down eventually. And unlike satellites, these things will likely not disintegrate into a happy poof because that's what they're not supposed to do. Unfortunately they're also not really supposed to come down like manned capsules, i.e. in one piece and softly. And you don't want them to come down and impact somewhere because it just might unsettle the payload enough to make the payload supercritical.
Slashdot Mirror
Got anyone in the more recent past? Like, say, in the past decade or two?
Back then, three letter agencies and even companies hired criminals, until they noticed that a criminal isn't suddenly turning around just because you pay him to do so.
The first thing you get asked for in ANY IT security related job is a police record. And if there's more on it than a parking violation, don't bother to apply, you just waste your, and my, time.
Investment bankers noticed that they can be replaced by a very small script and try to fearmonger the world into letting them continue to leech off the labor of people doing actual work.
Or pumping more money into the financial system to prop up investment firms. For the same reason.
Aww, don't spoil it. At least wait 'til the first ones replied with foam coming from their mouth.
Actually, he paid quite handsomely. You do want to pay the people who could easily blow up your operation without leaving a trace well so they want your operation to continue. Pure self interest.
Had he called it "furry porn", nobody would have dared to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Nope. Sorry to burst that bubble, but a criminal record is not a letter of recommendation.
Or, in the words of an ex-boss of mine "I don't need people with a criminal record. People who don't know how not to get caught are bad for the company reputation".
Well, considering how much they generally understand of technology today...
I'd like to know what the favorable conditions are for Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Sweden or Switzerland?
Dude, I live over here in "socialist" Europe where we have all the perks you're talking about and more. And even I, as someone who earns quite a bit of money, don't pay 30% in taxes.
In other words, if you pay 30% tax and do NOT get that in return... well, everyone has the government they deserve.
Spaceforce sounds like a very poorly drawn 80s Saturday morning cartoon show.
China is currently ideologically close to Fascism than Communism.
The problem is that the incentive to get out of bed in the morning and contribute something positive to the world is gone. Why bother when there is nothing to be gained that way?
The old American Dream was "work hard, earn money, put away a bit, invest wisely and soon you, too, can be rich". It's over. People have learned that they don't earn enough money to put away anything.
The new American Dream is "Working doesn't get you anywhere. Run into some rich guy's car and sue the pants off him, or hope to win the lottery".
Social Market Economy.
Worked great for Western Germany 'til they foolishly reunited with the communist Eastern part. 'til then they had one of the strongest economies of the planet, not even half a century after losing a totally crippling war.
The right laws? Curiously the ones that don't get eliminated...
The system we're suffering under has about as much to do with Capitalism as the Soviet Union had to do with Socialism. Yeah, it's called that, but just calling shit butter and showing that it spreads well on bread doesn't change its taste.
You don't include fuel generating equipment with every mining vehicle. Once probes find an asteroid with interesting ore and ice you send a refueling ship. When it reports back that its operational and successfully making fuel you can start sending mining vehicles.
Ok, so an ore mining ship must in every case include enough fuel for trip and return trip, because you do not know whether and how much fuel you can actually get from the asteroid at hand. Again, you are trying to match your speed to an asteroid that's on a (for all practical reasons) hyperbolic path, with its perigee (also known as the point in a flight path where you do NOT want to make speed adjustments if you can at all avoid it) near the point of intercept. AND then return from this hyperbolic flight path to one that takes you to Earth's orbit (or the moon, doesn't really matter that much at this scale). Do you have a faint idea how much dV we are talking here? And how much fuel this would take?
H and O are not the only possible fuels. Asteroids can be rich with all sort of compounds. Also the power source of the refueling ship need not be solar, nuclear is another option.
H and O are not the only options. But the only feasible ones. You can pretty much forget all hypergolic fuels. You won't find elementary oxygen or any other sensible oxidizer in another form. What's left is electrolysis of water. If you have any other ideas, please present them, I can't think of any.
Concerning energy, yes, you could of course use radioisotope batteries. But they're even less efficient than solar panels and their general power output is way lower. At least I hope you were referring to that and didn't really propose sending a nuclear reactor into space. Because then we really ARE back at the weight problem.
Lifting the lunar equipment from earth is a one-time thing, and all the infrastructure need not necessarily be lifted. A bootstrapping approach can be used. Equipment for a small scale operation can be lifted to manufacture the equipment for a large scape operation using local resources. The mining and refueling vehicles could be made from lunar resources.
Again, you do remember the Saturn V? Unless what you want to take to the moon is incredibly light, a feature manufacturing equipment rarely has, especially at the scale you have in mind, we are talking about an amount of material and fuel that makes the proposal ridiculous to say the least.
Feasability: Miners have been separating ore from non-ore with picks, hammers, chisels, etc for centuries.
Correct. Combined with
I'm referring to ore.
it means you're transporting about 50-80% (depending on the mineral you're after, or, more properly, able to get, since it's kinda hard to order the kind of asteroid you currently need) slag. Taking into account that certain metals can be found compounded with others and that you actually want all of them. I dunno, but "efficient" isn't exactly the word that comes to my mind with those amounts.
Pick the right asteroid and there is fuel at the asteroid.
Now I'm curious. What fuel would that be? It cannot be hypergolic, for obvious reasons, so ... hydrogen? Kinda hard to mine, even in space this close to the sun it's a gas. Besides, where should the oxygen come from because you need that, too. But the asteroid could contain water, so we could use energy (from solar cells) to split up water into hydrogen and oxygen and store the result. That would work. If, and only if, you find a way to ignite it. Because that's something we didn't even touch yet, very, very few rockets are capable of multiple ignitions. That's actually a nontrivial issue to solve.
There's also that problem with electrolysis. It takes quite a bit of energy to do it on a scale that would be required for a rocket that's supposed to transport ore. With a projected SI of about 500 (let's be generous) for H2/O2 rockets, I leave it to you to determine just how much fuel would be needed to get to an asteroid on a hyperbolic trajectory, mine it and get back onto a trajectory for lunar orbit... that could maybe not be doable in the rather little time we'd have before the dV required for return becomes kinda ridiculous.
Then there's that pesky problem of keeping H2 cold and getting it fed to the engine while essentially weightless... but maybe you have a completely different kind of fuel in mind, I'd really like to know.
The ore is coming from an asteroid in a near-zero G environment, not from the earth's surface.
At one point in time you still have to at the very least transport your asteroid miner to the orbit and your refinery to the moon, and whatever that moon-based equipment is going to weigh will need approximately 100 times its weight in a rocket getting it there. And we didn't even talk about that part yet, and neither about getting the assembled stuff back into Earth's orbit, because that's why we do all this in the first place.
Yes, but there better already be a nuclear war going when they do, because one of these rockets dropping its payload prematurely due to a fault would probably start one.
2 things you should probably know: Man-rated != manned. It means that these rockets are built to higher level security specifications to make accidental rapid unplanned disassembly less likely. Which you want if the payload is humans. Or a bomb that can potentially make large portions of your (or, diplomatically worse, another) country uninhabitable for the next couple dozens generations.
Second, "high" doesn't mean "orbit". To get into an orbit, you needn't go up, you have to go fast sideways. The only reason we go up first is that it's kinda hard to go fast in the thick atmosphere our planet has. Altitude only matters because of the atmosphere, not because that's a requirement for an orbit. Without that pesky air around us, you could orbit the planet safely at about 10km altitude.
Are you assuming my gender? :)
Again, you don't just send up a warhead. You have to send up a warhead AND what's required to get it back down to earth. Preferably in a controlled fashion because, well, if it comes down in the wrong place, this just MIGHT cause a bit of a diplomatic issue.
And then there's the fact that everything you send up there WILL come down eventually. And unlike satellites, these things will likely not disintegrate into a happy poof because that's what they're not supposed to do. Unfortunately they're also not really supposed to come down like manned capsules, i.e. in one piece and softly. And you don't want them to come down and impact somewhere because it just might unsettle the payload enough to make the payload supercritical.
There's plenty of reasons to simply not do it.
He has more than one? I start to understand why he's so popular.
The only people who give a fuck are people with an agenda.
MyWhatnow?