I think I'd want to see a Mars sample return mission before saying all technology is proven. We haven't yet demonstrated that we can send payload to Mars efficiently enough that something can be launched from the surface and sent back to Earth.
Honestly, Facebook keeps such a terrible quality version of the image that I don't know why anyone wouldn't have a hi-res copy of anything they don't want to lose.
Really, any interplanetary spacecraft is good enough. There are very few trajectories that leave the Earth that don't also allow you to see anything else potentially in the same orbit as you move far enough away.
Because the universe has a finite age and light has a speed limit, there are a finite (though still very large) number of things we can see in the universe. Further, as far as we can tell everything in the universe obeys the same laws of physics. Thus we don't necessarily expect infinite variation in the cosmos - there should instead be a good deal of uniformity. When something unusual or exceptional occurs, it's interesting because it wasn't necessarily expected that such a thing could exist.
The L4 and L5 points are actually stable equilibria, meaning that a body a very short distance away from the L-point will circle it. I would guess instability is more likely to come from effects like orbits being not perfectly planar and circular, and perturbations from other bodies in the system, rather than from being not quite on the L-point.
One of the fundamental assumptions underpinning all of cosmology is that we're not in a uniquely special place in the universe, unless there is some a priori reason to think so. Yes, we need to live at a certain distance from a certain type of star, but on a larger scale there should be nothing special about the stellar environment we are in. As long as that assumption is true, it seems reasonable to me that we can take the stars around us as a representative sample of the stars in the galaxy and make this sort of extrapolation. In principle of course it should have some margin of error based on sample size and other statistical factors.
As far as I know, all observed extremophiles still need some form of liquid water. As the habitable zone is simply an estimate of where liquid water can exist (modulo atmospheric conditions and the like), this seems to me like an adequate way narrow down what planets may have life on them.
This isn't really a disproof, as I read it. All I see in the scientific summary (with the caveat that I have not read the arxiv paper) is a lower bound on the mass of black holes created in proton collisions. This would tune the parameters of string theory, not disprove it. And in principle, more bounds on parameters in the theory should allow for more predictions to be made.
One of the things that makes string theory very attractive is that excitations to a one-dimensional string look like gravitational waves, so that strings give a quantum model for gravitons.
Is it known that the x-37 has been changing its orbit by firing an engine? Back in the x-20 program there were thoughts about changing orbits by dipping slightly into the atmosphere and using wings, and I've always assumed that's what this new plane has been doing. If done right, you can change orbit with much less energy cost, as you only need to fire engines to lower the orbit initially and to circularize it afterward.
I don't deny the potential existence of alien life. I just don't believe the idea that the government is in any way engaged with them. Thus any surveillance the NRO performs I assume to be fully terrestrial.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'd want to see a Mars sample return mission before saying all technology is proven. We haven't yet demonstrated that we can send payload to Mars efficiently enough that something can be launched from the surface and sent back to Earth.
I agree. Is this seriously an app that looks where you're going for you?
Interestingly, it's very difficult to celebrate both holidays.
I think I've seen this comment four times on this page, but I still think it's more insightful that redundant.
The solar panels also have the ability to rotate and track the sun. Which begs the question of why they seem to be pointed in different directions.
Honestly, Facebook keeps such a terrible quality version of the image that I don't know why anyone wouldn't have a hi-res copy of anything they don't want to lose.
Really, any interplanetary spacecraft is good enough. There are very few trajectories that leave the Earth that don't also allow you to see anything else potentially in the same orbit as you move far enough away.
Because the universe has a finite age and light has a speed limit, there are a finite (though still very large) number of things we can see in the universe. Further, as far as we can tell everything in the universe obeys the same laws of physics. Thus we don't necessarily expect infinite variation in the cosmos - there should instead be a good deal of uniformity. When something unusual or exceptional occurs, it's interesting because it wasn't necessarily expected that such a thing could exist.
The L4 and L5 points are actually stable equilibria, meaning that a body a very short distance away from the L-point will circle it. I would guess instability is more likely to come from effects like orbits being not perfectly planar and circular, and perturbations from other bodies in the system, rather than from being not quite on the L-point.
Using your own joystick doesn't count!
One of the fundamental assumptions underpinning all of cosmology is that we're not in a uniquely special place in the universe, unless there is some a priori reason to think so. Yes, we need to live at a certain distance from a certain type of star, but on a larger scale there should be nothing special about the stellar environment we are in. As long as that assumption is true, it seems reasonable to me that we can take the stars around us as a representative sample of the stars in the galaxy and make this sort of extrapolation. In principle of course it should have some margin of error based on sample size and other statistical factors.
As far as I know, all observed extremophiles still need some form of liquid water. As the habitable zone is simply an estimate of where liquid water can exist (modulo atmospheric conditions and the like), this seems to me like an adequate way narrow down what planets may have life on them.
Seriously? You have a problem with an article about video game design on Slashdot?
... to the Terminator. This is terrifying news :O
I actually still have no idea how to parse that title.
It's not XKCD, but... http://www.robandelliot.cycomics.com/archive.php?id=318
Did you seriously link a verbatim reproduction of TFA with emphasis added?
This isn't really a disproof, as I read it. All I see in the scientific summary (with the caveat that I have not read the arxiv paper) is a lower bound on the mass of black holes created in proton collisions. This would tune the parameters of string theory, not disprove it. And in principle, more bounds on parameters in the theory should allow for more predictions to be made.
One of the things that makes string theory very attractive is that excitations to a one-dimensional string look like gravitational waves, so that strings give a quantum model for gravitons.
The cheese I saw wasn't green, so I think you're mistaken.
That's true of anything that causes your computer to fail to boot.
could this actually be an article about a reasonable patent on Slashdot? i'm kind of impressed,
Is it known that the x-37 has been changing its orbit by firing an engine? Back in the x-20 program there were thoughts about changing orbits by dipping slightly into the atmosphere and using wings, and I've always assumed that's what this new plane has been doing. If done right, you can change orbit with much less energy cost, as you only need to fire engines to lower the orbit initially and to circularize it afterward.
I don't deny the potential existence of alien life. I just don't believe the idea that the government is in any way engaged with them. Thus any surveillance the NRO performs I assume to be fully terrestrial.
The ESA is preparing to launch Soyuz rockets from Guiana, so I'm not sure competitor is the right word. That said, the R-7 is an incredible rocket.