And homosexual behavior has been observed in a multitude of species so it seems to be "natural"...
Stating that it is found in nature among other species is not the best of arguments for justifying homosexuality. Rape, war, kidnapping, and cannibalism are also found in nature (well-document cases of rape among mallard ducks, territorial fights among wolf packs, and kidnapping / killing / consuming of young chimpanzees by a mother/daughter pair in the same group are examples that come to mind).
I don't think we should look to "nature" as the final authority on what constitutes moral/ethical behavior.
The US constitution gives Congress the power to grant patents to "promote science and the useful arts". How do patents like this promote either? Note that "business" is not an art-that falls under interstate commerce regulation (clearly not mentioned in the section describing justification for patents).
I, for one, would love to see the courts start throwing out abuses of the law happening all over the place that don't meet a plain reading of the constitution as it was understood by the rgular voters who ratified it in the first place.
We need the lunar version of a self-replicating machine shop that can reproduce >95% of its parts from materials that are proxucible on the moon. It will likely be a while before things like microchips or things requiring exotic materials wil be easier to make there, but other things may be produced from raw materials or grown (feasibility depends on what feedstocks can be found vs what needs to be shipped in). We need to look for the advantages that would allow new basic approaches to create processed goods at low cost. use of solar furnaces mirrors in a vaccum environment may make it easy to refine titanium from the regolith. If you can do that, that is a huge step towards self sustainment or even a viable export commodity.
"Now if there was ANY case of a successful supernatural explanation of anything in the natural world perhaps you might have an argument as to the existence of God. But there isn't."
Any religion with a true believer satisfies your premise. If you are looking for supernatural things that have been subjected to modern scientific scrutiny, read up on: -the Miracle of Lanciano (I've seen this first hand-no apparent change last year since the earliest pictures) -the Shroud of Turin
Note that the Shroud has not been proven to be a medieval forgery as often cited; read up on the follow-up study by the original dating team which found the original carbon dating to be invalid because it incorporated fibers from a medieval repair effort. Don't limit yourself to reading the summaries; the case for an invalid dating is rock solid as stated by the man who led the initial dating effort (the original dated samples contained a mixture of linen fibers from the original fabric and died wool from the repair which resulted in a date weighted significantly in the direction of the repair date due to exponential decay).
Also, there are many examples of "miraculous" occurrences in modern settings that are well documented, but ignored or unknown by nonbelievers. If you don't think any of them are credible, take it upon yourself to talk to a number of medical doctors (especially ER) and ask how many have seen things that they contradict everything they know about medicine; the likelihood of finding something that has yet to be explained by science is pretty high in any population of doctors or emergency workers.
We've already seen micro projectors built into devices this small for video output and projecting virtual keyboards on a flat surface. Using Kinnect-style algorithms, one could use the phones camera for tracking fingers moving over a keyboard printed on a sheet of paper
As far as near-future devices are concerned, I'm sure there is a large market out their for sunglasses that incorporate displays (private viewing, 3D graphics, augmented reality, etc.) or input devices possible with current technology or that currently have a small specialized market (e.g. ring for tracking finger motion, eyeball trackers, implanted neural interfaces, etc).
Many of the tools in the soldier's arsenals are from things the grunts started doing in the field (moreso in war zones) that caught the eye of the higher-ups.
My dad became the first* certified "chainsaw carpenter" in the army when an officer saw him using a chainsaw to cut timers for building constructed by his engineering battalion. Prior to that, all they were issued were hand saws (not even electric). Within a short time (a couple years), the chainsaw was standard equipment for field construction. (*others probably used chainsaws as well, but he was the one that was seen and asked to create an official class for certifying others in use of a chainsaw during building construction).
In the news more recently, soldiers have been using silly string to detect trip wires when entering buildings. I suspect that solicitations for development of a military version of silly string (i.e. more expensive and in a camo-colored container) has already begun.
I can easily see some maverick unit trying this stuff out after a few too many of their buddies get hurt. What is $15k out of pocket to an attorney, business owner, etc. who is a member of a National Guard unit that got activated? As it is, the guys in Iraq are paying out of their own pocket to "up-armor" their standard-issue Hummers.
On second thought, those Haliburton truckers on convoy duty in Iraq might beat them to the punch.
Have you thought about putting the compressor in a freezer? If the methane ran through a coil of copper tubing, you could make it more dense by cooling it prior to compression. When the compressed methane bottle is brought to room temp, it will be under higher pressure. The colder the freezer, the higher the compression
\not sure how much pressure could be gained this way, would have to crank the numbers
"In other words, if you object to DRM schemes, is your objection based on principled or practical concerns?"
This reminds me of the hacking/cracking debate in my ethics class. On one side, there isn't anything inherently wrong with a person hacking into a computer to look around, as long as they don't cause any harm within the computer or use the knowledge to cause harm in the real world (e.g. using secret information to buy stock may change the stock price and hurt a buyer or seller who doesn't have that info). On the other side, hacking/cracking is always wrong because, in practice, a hacker has no way to ensure that their actions will not cause any harm (e.g. they may cause a system slow-down, crash, release of proprietary info, etc.).
In a similar fashion, there is no way to implement DRM that is guaranteed to allow a licensed user to use a copyrighted work without hindering them and at the same time prevent unlicensed usage of the work short of a massive privacy invasion of the user. In this case, it is impossible for a "principled" DRM to even exist, so the question is moot.
It shouldn't be too hard to design/print a fixture for scanning an item by taking pictures of it. E.g. put the item on a turntable in front of a camera with a "blue screen" behind it. Rotate the object in question, taking pictures as it turns, then back-calculate distances to generate a surface model. I believe that a company was doing this at the Millennium Dome a year or two ago with people to generate avatars for use with computer sims/games.
As of a year ago, brand new Phillips MRI scanners were using Windows. The customer engineer I worked with said they had switched recently from UNIX and couldn't figure out why. I do know that we ran into problems that forced us to reboot the system at least daily and more often when doing heavy scan regimens.
It doesn't have to be 900 meters across to simulate _some_ gravity. Any kid on a playground will tell you that a merry-go-round is big enough to feel it. I'm suggesting a "stick" consisting of a central hub with modules that are similarly sized to the current ISS modules. You could keep extending the length of the "stick" as needed, but slow down its rotation to prevent excessive g's.
You're talking about shipping some of the heaviest, most hazardous stuff imaginable on top of the equivalent of a giant bomb (IIRC, the energy stored in a Saturn V was approximately the same as Hiroshima). If people got bent out of shape over the launch and flyby of Casini with a small RTG that was _designed_ to survive such an explosion, there is no way people will put up with launches of nuclear waste, which includes all sorts of materials (old coolant, fuel cores, reactor bodies, etc.) that are just not designed to withstand that situation.
I think nuclear power in space is a good idea, but it is a lot easier to deal with launching individual cores (that are armored to withstand anything) and a bunch of non-radioactive reactor components that can be sent up separate launches than it is to deal with similar items designed for earth use and after they have already been assembled and become contaminated (people can assemble components with their bare hands until they become hot; old cores have to be handled only be robots, which can be quite difficult).
Unless we see some "miracle" breakthrough in physics, I don't see launching nuclear waste for disposal in our future.
Use a stick. It can't wobble. You could even use a plus-shaped station without adding a lot of wobble.
Sleeping and exercise quarters could be located on the ends, where gravity is most needed. Moving toward the center, other facilities, like kitchens, bathrooms, etc could be located.
The very center would be reserved for very low gravity experiments and docking ports. A robotic arm may be useful for docking, since the exact center of rotation may change-a robotic arm could compensate and remain motionless about the axis of spin and capture and release spacecraft that are being docked/undocked.
Countries like the US and Australia came about from a multitude of separate ventures. I think NASA has shown it has difficulty trying to do too much at the same time, but this shouldn't limit what other entities try on their own.
I use geothermal heating and cooling in my home. It is amazing what efficiency you can get with big loop of buried coolant lines and a heat pump. I don't know what the subsurface temperature of the moon is, but I bet it is pretty cold. As a bonus, you can use the waste heat and a heat exchanger to heat your habitat.
I don't really see an alternative to nuclear power if we are serious about space development. Hopefully fusion will be available soon, but with a track record of nearly 50 years, researchers are saying it will likely be at least another 40 years before it is commercially available (i.e. sometime after they retire and it is someone else's problem).
I'm not a big fan of fission in the way it is implemented on earth in most places (e.g. no realistic plan for fuel disposal), but there are a few promising technologies that don't require off-site disposal (one idea floated involves a city-scale plant that is essentially solid state and gradually looses output as its fuel decays). Systems such as the Casini RTG have demonstrated relatively safe systems of boosting fuel into orbit. Such systems could/should be used to meet power requirements for exploration craft and bases, at least until on-site manufacturing can support other types of power generation/collection.
"the reason that spinning stations aren't used is because engineering such a system turns out to be quite a bit more difficult than at first glance."
NASA needs to get out of its "not invented here" mindset and go talk to some midway ride designers.
Seriously, though, I see where there are issues in creating a non-vibrating, rotating, airtight interface between a rotating section and a non-rotating section of a spacecraft/space station. But why can't the astronauts just have a nearby habitat that they do shift changes with once a week? The center hub of the spinning habitat would have small effects that could still be useful for some experiments that only need low gravity. A separate, free-flying lab in close proximity could be used for experiments that require minimal gravity. Then, you could even leave the experiments untended for longer periods with reduced vibration from human activity.
As things are, the Russians regularly move around the Soyuz from one docking port to another to accomodate cargo craft and the Space shuttle. What difference would it make if they were moving to a free-floating habitat instead? As a bonus, they have a safe-haven in case something catastrophic happens to the habitat.
It seems like public support started to wane about the same time that the science program started taking over. After all, the first scientist on the moon was also the last.
People are interested in exploration more than science. People like stories of discovery-modern science is a lot more about cataloguing, analysis, and duplicating experiments. They know science is important, it just isn't as interesting. What is behind the next bend in the road/trail? What is over that hill? What is that cave? Discovery is something people in general can relate to and is therefore something they are more interested in.
Remember, ADD is a given in entertainment. How many people are going to be interested in "Will I get the same result this time as the last 43 times?" that science often addresses? People just don't have the attention span for careful observation-they'll take the "Cool! Did you see that!" any day.
"we have to learn to walk before we can run". "we have to learn to crawl before we can walk" "trying to fly before we can stand up"
The above are all commonly said and assumed to be true when in fact, they may not be.
1. Several of my younger siblings were able to run before they could walk. The MIT media lab ran had the same experience with their "waliking" robots-some were able to run more easily than walk.
2. I've seen a few babies that didn't learn to crawl until after they were walking. They had a short period where they sort-of scooted around, then went straight to walking/running without learning to move on all fours.
3. Loons (the Minnesota state bird) never learn to walk. Their center of gravity is so far forward that they are unable to stand and can only push themselves around on land (although I've heard some people claim they can land in trees). However, they are fully capable of flight.
Doing stuff in space is not a "natural progression". Just like in rock climbing, dynamic moves (i.e. jumping to the next hold) are sometimes called for because there are some places you can't get to by taking incremental steps-there comes a point when you just have to go all out and hope that you hit your target. Small steps got us the Shuttle and the ISS. We are overdue for a dynamic move.
Am I the only one who is amazed that NASA hasn't done the obvious and used zero G for living quarters? This is _not_ a new idea, but nobody seems to talk about it any more, much less have any plans to use it.
One of the big reasons for the altitude of the ISS is radiation shielding. It is close enough to the earth that the earth's magnetic field keeps out a lot of the radiation it would encounter further out. The amount of shielding needed to bring down to acceptable levels is pretty significant. A moon base can theoretically get around this by burying the habitats under regolith. La Grange points are useful for really long-term projects like telescopes and the like. However, I do think it is time to step beyond LEO.
Look back at exploration prior to the 17th century. These trips were made in small ships that were marginally self-sufficient. They sailed with extra crew because they _knew_ they were likely to return fewer in number, if at all, and had to have a minimum number of people left to sail. They were equipped to sail for intermediate lengths of time, but not well suited to long-range exploration. They sailed with pretty much only the materials they were expected to need, and if they ran out of something important, they tried to limp along until they could get back to a port.
Compare this with later ships that circumnavigated the globe on multi-year expeditions. The ships tended to be larger and more self-sufficient. They included things like portable blacksmith shops that could repair and fabricate unknown articles as needed, manufactured from stock materials that were also brought along.
Now that private companies are showing some proficiency with tasks that were previously only the domain of government (e.g. launch capabilities, manufacture of orbital habitats and facilities), NASA should concentrate on the next step in exploration. If they want to explore (which I fully support doing), they should concentrate on developing things which support exploration that nobody has done yet. Support tasks, such as launch capability, habitats, etc., should be farmed out in competitive contracts or Grand-Challenge style contests.
A moon base is a logical step, but it is really just a support role. NASA should farm this out or indicate willingness to purchase capabilities and participate in evaluation, but should focus on creating long-range exploration capability. After all, even Columbus's trip was government financed. Once people became aware of the investment potential, they financed new ventures themselves and eventually opened up what had been exploration efforts into commercial enterprises and settlements.
Has anybody looked into paying this tax directly? It doesn't sound like using the oil is illegal, just not paying tax on it.
This sounds like the situation in Minnesota where they have die added to fuel that is sold for off-road purposes (e.g. farming equipment, construction equipment, generators, etc.). The gas-tax is incorporated into the price of on-road fuel and is used (in theory) to offset road construction costs. Since the off-road equipment doesn't use the roads, they don't have to pay the tax. The die is added to the fuel so that law enforcement can identify people not paying the gas-tax for their vehicles by just checking the fuel tank.
Interesting link above. It sounds like the Brits were just using oil straight from the grocery store at about half the price of fuel at the pump.
Just make stuff that makes sense, i.e. things that will ultimately be cheaper to produce in-house or cheaper to put in Earth orbit. For example, it wouldn't make any sense to produce athletic shoes on the moon, but it may be cheaper to built orbital solar array components since the launch costs are greatly reduced and processes running on the moon may have some advantages such as reduced gravity. Of course, initial prices will be higher, but if the cost is averaged out over a number of years, some products will have cost advantages and some will likely never become viable.
Sure, large hydroponic areas will eventually be needed, but not right away. After all, it doesn't have to be self sufficient immediately. I imagine food production will be gradually rolled out as facilities come online. And who says they will need to be hydroponic? For all we know, regolith may be good for growing potatoes...
As far as finding people to work there, I think you wouldn't have to pay much more than is payed in harsh environments on Earth. Enough people would find the idea exciting that you likely wouldn't have a problem signing people up (look how many sign up to stay on commercial ships for long periods).
"If the Chinese want the moon, I say let them have it. They'll go broke trying to colonize it... as would we."
A lot of people said the same things about the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska. Sure, it may be rough for the early adopters, but it always is. Turning our backs on any resource may end up looking like a bad idea far enough down the road. Besides, I think there is a decent chance that their will be countries (or their equivalent) on the moon when enough time passes. Due to the UN space treaty, existing countries aren't allowed to stake claims to areas of the moon. However, if someone intends to permanently live there, someone will want self determination and declare an independent state.
Exact wording from November 1st letter to the judge:
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiff's consent. Defendant does not dispute this fact."
Lawyers love to use long sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The above actually contains several "facts" lumped together. 1) "Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account " 2) "the internet access account through which hundreds of... sound recordings were downloaded" 3) "the internet access account through which hundreds of... sound recordings were... distributed"
Number 1) is substantiated by the AOL letter, assuming that one accepts that having an IP assigned for a set time period (i.e. a few hours) to an account holder is equivalent to owning the internet access account in question. I doubt that number 2 can be proved, unless the screenshot giving the IP address actually showed the files being downloaded. The defendent could just as easily have uploaded them to her computer from CDs. Number 3 is a pretty straight-forward claim; however, it is not substantiated by AOL's letter.
Of course, the way the sentence is structured, all three claims are lumped together so that the sentence can be construed to mean that either the AOL letter confirms just the account ownership or that it confirms ownership AND downloading AND distributing. Such a sentence structure lets them give the wrong impression to the judge without saying anything that can be proven to be false (at worst, it can shown to be ambiguous). This gives an easy win if the Judge misunderstands and still allows them to claim that they didn't lie if they are caught-only that the sentence was misunderstood.
To top it off, the second sentence quoted above is a claim by the RIAA which basically says the defendant hasn't already said something contradicting the claim in the previous sentence (notice they say claim, not claims). This is bogus because they could claim that the lady committed murder and hasn't disputed it (which would technically be true until the defense hears the claim and can say how absurd it is!) Of course the lady's attorney disputed the misunderstood claim pretty much as soon as they got a hold of the AOL letter (that is what the article is about).
I suppose if the judge gets pissed, he can chew out the plaintiffs for sloppy writing and maybe even censure them for making misrepresentations, but not perjury.
Slashdot Mirror
And homosexual behavior has been observed in a multitude of species so it seems to be "natural"...
Stating that it is found in nature among other species is not the best of arguments for justifying homosexuality. Rape, war, kidnapping, and cannibalism are also found in nature (well-document cases of rape among mallard ducks, territorial fights among wolf packs, and kidnapping / killing / consuming of young chimpanzees by a mother/daughter pair in the same group are examples that come to mind).
I don't think we should look to "nature" as the final authority on what constitutes moral/ethical behavior.
The US constitution gives Congress the power to grant patents to "promote science and the useful arts". How do patents like this promote either? Note that "business" is not an art-that falls under interstate commerce regulation (clearly not mentioned in the section describing justification for patents).
I, for one, would love to see the courts start throwing out abuses of the law happening all over the place that don't meet a plain reading of the constitution as it was understood by the rgular voters who ratified it in the first place.
We need the lunar version of a self-replicating machine shop that can reproduce >95% of its parts from materials that are proxucible on the moon. It will likely be a while before things like microchips or things requiring exotic materials wil be easier to make there, but other things may be produced from raw materials or grown (feasibility depends on what feedstocks can be found vs what needs to be shipped in). We need to look for the advantages that would allow new basic approaches to create processed goods at low cost. use of solar furnaces mirrors in a vaccum environment may make it easy to refine titanium from the regolith. If you can do that, that is a huge step towards self sustainment or even a viable export commodity.
"Now if there was ANY case of a successful supernatural explanation of anything in the natural world perhaps you might have an argument as to the existence of God. But there isn't."
Any religion with a true believer satisfies your premise. If you are looking for supernatural things that have been subjected to modern scientific scrutiny, read up on:
-the Miracle of Lanciano (I've seen this first hand-no apparent change last year since the earliest pictures)
-the Shroud of Turin
Note that the Shroud has not been proven to be a medieval forgery as often cited; read up on the follow-up study by the original dating team which found the original carbon dating to be invalid because it incorporated fibers from a medieval repair effort. Don't limit yourself to reading the summaries; the case for an invalid dating is rock solid as stated by the man who led the initial dating effort (the original dated samples contained a mixture of linen fibers from the original fabric and died wool from the repair which resulted in a date weighted significantly in the direction of the repair date due to exponential decay).
Also, there are many examples of "miraculous" occurrences in modern settings that are well documented, but ignored or unknown by nonbelievers. If you don't think any of them are credible, take it upon yourself to talk to a number of medical doctors (especially ER) and ask how many have seen things that they contradict everything they know about medicine; the likelihood of finding something that has yet to be explained by science is pretty high in any population of doctors or emergency workers.
We've already seen micro projectors built into devices this small for video output and projecting virtual keyboards on a flat surface. Using Kinnect-style algorithms, one could use the phones camera for tracking fingers moving over a keyboard printed on a sheet of paper
As far as near-future devices are concerned, I'm sure there is a large market out their for sunglasses that incorporate displays (private viewing, 3D graphics, augmented reality, etc.) or input devices possible with current technology or that currently have a small specialized market (e.g. ring for tracking finger motion, eyeball trackers, implanted neural interfaces, etc).
Many of the tools in the soldier's arsenals are from things the grunts started doing in the field (moreso in war zones) that caught the eye of the higher-ups.
My dad became the first* certified "chainsaw carpenter" in the army when an officer saw him using a chainsaw to cut timers for building constructed by his engineering battalion. Prior to that, all they were issued were hand saws (not even electric). Within a short time (a couple years), the chainsaw was standard equipment for field construction. (*others probably used chainsaws as well, but he was the one that was seen and asked to create an official class for certifying others in use of a chainsaw during building construction).
In the news more recently, soldiers have been using silly string to detect trip wires when entering buildings. I suspect that solicitations for development of a military version of silly string (i.e. more expensive and in a camo-colored container) has already begun.
I can easily see some maverick unit trying this stuff out after a few too many of their buddies get hurt. What is $15k out of pocket to an attorney, business owner, etc. who is a member of a National Guard unit that got activated? As it is, the guys in Iraq are paying out of their own pocket to "up-armor" their standard-issue Hummers.
On second thought, those Haliburton truckers on convoy duty in Iraq might beat them to the punch.
Have you thought about putting the compressor in a freezer? If the methane ran through a coil of copper tubing, you could make it more dense by cooling it prior to compression. When the compressed methane bottle is brought to room temp, it will be under higher pressure. The colder the freezer, the higher the compression
\not sure how much pressure could be gained this way, would have to crank the numbers
"In other words, if you object to DRM schemes, is your objection based on principled or practical concerns?"
This reminds me of the hacking/cracking debate in my ethics class. On one side, there isn't anything inherently wrong with a person hacking into a computer to look around, as long as they don't cause any harm within the computer or use the knowledge to cause harm in the real world (e.g. using secret information to buy stock may change the stock price and hurt a buyer or seller who doesn't have that info). On the other side, hacking/cracking is always wrong because, in practice, a hacker has no way to ensure that their actions will not cause any harm (e.g. they may cause a system slow-down, crash, release of proprietary info, etc.).
In a similar fashion, there is no way to implement DRM that is guaranteed to allow a licensed user to use a copyrighted work without hindering them and at the same time prevent unlicensed usage of the work short of a massive privacy invasion of the user. In this case, it is impossible for a "principled" DRM to even exist, so the question is moot.
It shouldn't be too hard to design/print a fixture for scanning an item by taking pictures of it. E.g. put the item on a turntable in front of a camera with a "blue screen" behind it. Rotate the object in question, taking pictures as it turns, then back-calculate distances to generate a surface model. I believe that a company was doing this at the Millennium Dome a year or two ago with people to generate avatars for use with computer sims/games.
As of a year ago, brand new Phillips MRI scanners were using Windows. The customer engineer I worked with said they had switched recently from UNIX and couldn't figure out why. I do know that we ran into problems that forced us to reboot the system at least daily and more often when doing heavy scan regimens.
It doesn't have to be 900 meters across to simulate _some_ gravity. Any kid on a playground will tell you that a merry-go-round is big enough to feel it. I'm suggesting a "stick" consisting of a central hub with modules that are similarly sized to the current ISS modules. You could keep extending the length of the "stick" as needed, but slow down its rotation to prevent excessive g's.
You're talking about shipping some of the heaviest, most hazardous stuff imaginable on top of the equivalent of a giant bomb (IIRC, the energy stored in a Saturn V was approximately the same as Hiroshima). If people got bent out of shape over the launch and flyby of Casini with a small RTG that was _designed_ to survive such an explosion, there is no way people will put up with launches of nuclear waste, which includes all sorts of materials (old coolant, fuel cores, reactor bodies, etc.) that are just not designed to withstand that situation.
I think nuclear power in space is a good idea, but it is a lot easier to deal with launching individual cores (that are armored to withstand anything) and a bunch of non-radioactive reactor components that can be sent up separate launches than it is to deal with similar items designed for earth use and after they have already been assembled and become contaminated (people can assemble components with their bare hands until they become hot; old cores have to be handled only be robots, which can be quite difficult).
Unless we see some "miracle" breakthrough in physics, I don't see launching nuclear waste for disposal in our future.
Use a stick. It can't wobble. You could even use a plus-shaped station without adding a lot of wobble.
Sleeping and exercise quarters could be located on the ends, where gravity is most needed. Moving toward the center, other facilities, like kitchens, bathrooms, etc could be located.
The very center would be reserved for very low gravity experiments and docking ports. A robotic arm may be useful for docking, since the exact center of rotation may change-a robotic arm could compensate and remain motionless about the axis of spin and capture and release spacecraft that are being docked/undocked.
Countries like the US and Australia came about from a multitude of separate ventures. I think NASA has shown it has difficulty trying to do too much at the same time, but this shouldn't limit what other entities try on their own.
I use geothermal heating and cooling in my home. It is amazing what efficiency you can get with big loop of buried coolant lines and a heat pump. I don't know what the subsurface temperature of the moon is, but I bet it is pretty cold. As a bonus, you can use the waste heat and a heat exchanger to heat your habitat.
I don't really see an alternative to nuclear power if we are serious about space development. Hopefully fusion will be available soon, but with a track record of nearly 50 years, researchers are saying it will likely be at least another 40 years before it is commercially available (i.e. sometime after they retire and it is someone else's problem).
I'm not a big fan of fission in the way it is implemented on earth in most places (e.g. no realistic plan for fuel disposal), but there are a few promising technologies that don't require off-site disposal (one idea floated involves a city-scale plant that is essentially solid state and gradually looses output as its fuel decays). Systems such as the Casini RTG have demonstrated relatively safe systems of boosting fuel into orbit. Such systems could/should be used to meet power requirements for exploration craft and bases, at least until on-site manufacturing can support other types of power generation/collection.
"the reason that spinning stations aren't used is because engineering such a system turns out to be quite a bit more difficult than at first glance."
NASA needs to get out of its "not invented here" mindset and go talk to some midway ride designers.
Seriously, though, I see where there are issues in creating a non-vibrating, rotating, airtight interface between a rotating section and a non-rotating section of a spacecraft/space station. But why can't the astronauts just have a nearby habitat that they do shift changes with once a week? The center hub of the spinning habitat would have small effects that could still be useful for some experiments that only need low gravity. A separate, free-flying lab in close proximity could be used for experiments that require minimal gravity. Then, you could even leave the experiments untended for longer periods with reduced vibration from human activity.
As things are, the Russians regularly move around the Soyuz from one docking port to another to accomodate cargo craft and the Space shuttle. What difference would it make if they were moving to a free-floating habitat instead? As a bonus, they have a safe-haven in case something catastrophic happens to the habitat.
It seems like public support started to wane about the same time that the science program started taking over. After all, the first scientist on the moon was also the last.
People are interested in exploration more than science. People like stories of discovery-modern science is a lot more about cataloguing, analysis, and duplicating experiments. They know science is important, it just isn't as interesting. What is behind the next bend in the road/trail? What is over that hill? What is that cave? Discovery is something people in general can relate to and is therefore something they are more interested in.
Remember, ADD is a given in entertainment. How many people are going to be interested in "Will I get the same result this time as the last 43 times?" that science often addresses? People just don't have the attention span for careful observation-they'll take the "Cool! Did you see that!" any day.
"we have to learn to walk before we can run". "we have to learn to crawl before we can walk" "trying to fly before we can stand up"
The above are all commonly said and assumed to be true when in fact, they may not be.
1. Several of my younger siblings were able to run before they could walk. The MIT media lab ran had the same experience with their "waliking" robots-some were able to run more easily than walk.
2. I've seen a few babies that didn't learn to crawl until after they were walking. They had a short period where they sort-of scooted around, then went straight to walking/running without learning to move on all fours.
3. Loons (the Minnesota state bird) never learn to walk. Their center of gravity is so far forward that they are unable to stand and can only push themselves around on land (although I've heard some people claim they can land in trees). However, they are fully capable of flight.
Doing stuff in space is not a "natural progression". Just like in rock climbing, dynamic moves (i.e. jumping to the next hold) are sometimes called for because there are some places you can't get to by taking incremental steps-there comes a point when you just have to go all out and hope that you hit your target. Small steps got us the Shuttle and the ISS. We are overdue for a dynamic move.
Am I the only one who is amazed that NASA hasn't done the obvious and used zero G for living quarters? This is _not_ a new idea, but nobody seems to talk about it any more, much less have any plans to use it.
One of the big reasons for the altitude of the ISS is radiation shielding. It is close enough to the earth that the earth's magnetic field keeps out a lot of the radiation it would encounter further out. The amount of shielding needed to bring down to acceptable levels is pretty significant. A moon base can theoretically get around this by burying the habitats under regolith. La Grange points are useful for really long-term projects like telescopes and the like. However, I do think it is time to step beyond LEO.
Look back at exploration prior to the 17th century. These trips were made in small ships that were marginally self-sufficient. They sailed with extra crew because they _knew_ they were likely to return fewer in number, if at all, and had to have a minimum number of people left to sail. They were equipped to sail for intermediate lengths of time, but not well suited to long-range exploration. They sailed with pretty much only the materials they were expected to need, and if they ran out of something important, they tried to limp along until they could get back to a port.
Compare this with later ships that circumnavigated the globe on multi-year expeditions. The ships tended to be larger and more self-sufficient. They included things like portable blacksmith shops that could repair and fabricate unknown articles as needed, manufactured from stock materials that were also brought along.
Now that private companies are showing some proficiency with tasks that were previously only the domain of government (e.g. launch capabilities, manufacture of orbital habitats and facilities), NASA should concentrate on the next step in exploration. If they want to explore (which I fully support doing), they should concentrate on developing things which support exploration that nobody has done yet. Support tasks, such as launch capability, habitats, etc., should be farmed out in competitive contracts or Grand-Challenge style contests.
A moon base is a logical step, but it is really just a support role. NASA should farm this out or indicate willingness to purchase capabilities and participate in evaluation, but should focus on creating long-range exploration capability. After all, even Columbus's trip was government financed. Once people became aware of the investment potential, they financed new ventures themselves and eventually opened up what had been exploration efforts into commercial enterprises and settlements.
Has anybody looked into paying this tax directly? It doesn't sound like using the oil is illegal, just not paying tax on it.
This sounds like the situation in Minnesota where they have die added to fuel that is sold for off-road purposes (e.g. farming equipment, construction equipment, generators, etc.). The gas-tax is incorporated into the price of on-road fuel and is used (in theory) to offset road construction costs. Since the off-road equipment doesn't use the roads, they don't have to pay the tax. The die is added to the fuel so that law enforcement can identify people not paying the gas-tax for their vehicles by just checking the fuel tank.
Interesting link above. It sounds like the Brits were just using oil straight from the grocery store at about half the price of fuel at the pump.
I had some ideas, but couldn't find anything newer on the website that April 2006. Where is the active portion?
Just make stuff that makes sense, i.e. things that will ultimately be cheaper to produce in-house or cheaper to put in Earth orbit. For example, it wouldn't make any sense to produce athletic shoes on the moon, but it may be cheaper to built orbital solar array components since the launch costs are greatly reduced and processes running on the moon may have some advantages such as reduced gravity. Of course, initial prices will be higher, but if the cost is averaged out over a number of years, some products will have cost advantages and some will likely never become viable.
... as would we."
Sure, large hydroponic areas will eventually be needed, but not right away. After all, it doesn't have to be self sufficient immediately. I imagine food production will be gradually rolled out as facilities come online. And who says they will need to be hydroponic? For all we know, regolith may be good for growing potatoes...
As far as finding people to work there, I think you wouldn't have to pay much more than is payed in harsh environments on Earth. Enough people would find the idea exciting that you likely wouldn't have a problem signing people up (look how many sign up to stay on commercial ships for long periods).
"If the Chinese want the moon, I say let them have it. They'll go broke trying to colonize it
A lot of people said the same things about the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska. Sure, it may be rough for the early adopters, but it always is. Turning our backs on any resource may end up looking like a bad idea far enough down the road. Besides, I think there is a decent chance that their will be countries (or their equivalent) on the moon when enough time passes. Due to the UN space treaty, existing countries aren't allowed to stake claims to areas of the moon. However, if someone intends to permanently live there, someone will want self determination and declare an independent state.
Exact wording from November 1st letter to the judge:
... sound recordings were downloaded" ... sound recordings were ... distributed"
...k tra_schwartz_061028anscounterclaim)
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiff's consent. Defendant does not dispute this fact."
Lawyers love to use long sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The above actually contains several "facts" lumped together.
1) "Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account "
2) "the internet access account through which hundreds of
3) "the internet access account through which hundreds of
Number 1) is substantiated by the AOL letter, assuming that one accepts that having an IP assigned for a set time period (i.e. a few hours) to an account holder is equivalent to owning the internet access account in question. I doubt that number 2 can be proved, unless the screenshot giving the IP address actually showed the files being downloaded. The defendent could just as easily have uploaded them to her computer from CDs. Number 3 is a pretty straight-forward claim; however, it is not substantiated by AOL's letter.
Of course, the way the sentence is structured, all three claims are lumped together so that the sentence can be construed to mean that either the AOL letter confirms just the account ownership or that it confirms ownership AND downloading AND distributing. Such a sentence structure lets them give the wrong impression to the judge without saying anything that can be proven to be false (at worst, it can shown to be ambiguous). This gives an easy win if the Judge misunderstands and still allows them to claim that they didn't lie if they are caught-only that the sentence was misunderstood.
To top it off, the second sentence quoted above is a claim by the RIAA which basically says the defendant hasn't already said something contradicting the claim in the previous sentence (notice they say claim, not claims). This is bogus because they could claim that the lady committed murder and hasn't disputed it (which would technically be true until the defense hears the claim and can say how absurd it is!) Of course the lady's attorney disputed the misunderstood claim pretty much as soon as they got a hold of the AOL letter (that is what the article is about).
I suppose if the judge gets pissed, he can chew out the plaintiffs for sloppy writing and maybe even censure them for making misrepresentations, but not perjury.
Kinda funny though, how the article doesn't mention that the lady has a teenage daughter with friends who used the computer
(see counterclaim 27 at http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=ele