"I suppose my skepticism of such claims of consistency comes from my experience that, when there is an apparent inconsistency that is truly hard to explain, the religious faith of the person claiming the inconsistency is resolvable always precedes their acceptance of the logical explanation for its resolution."
In my experience, this doesn't always happen. Most often, the people I encounter don't really want to dig into the details of their faith and have a deep discussion about it. In the occasions that they do, I usually encounter an "ostrich", a blusterer, or a thinker. The ostrich pretty much tries to pretend that what you're saying hasn't been said. The blusterer gets flustered and tends to counter attack without refuting a tough question or point. The thinker pursues the question until they can refute it or they change the way they do things.
I prefer talking with other thinkers, as it keeps me sharp and may lead them to a "more-consistant religion". Lately, it seems I've been hearing of more converts to Catholicsm among thinkers in other churches as their own churches stray further from their routes and develop (more) inconsistancies.
As long as you can find silica and metal ore on the moon, you have raw materials for doing just about anything. Water ice is nice, but you don't really need a whole lot if you have a good recycling system.
Silica-has oxygen for rockets and breating, can be used as a basic construction material, and can be refined to grow silicon. Silicon is useful for creating exports (e.g. low gravity can be useful for growing crystals) and creating solar cells and computer components.
Metal ore-can be collected from meteors, etc. and refined to obtain copper, iron, nickel, etc. and used for construction, as conductors, for building motors, air-tight seals, etc.
The above two catagories can produce just about everything needed for producing a moon base and exports for a lunar-earth economy. A greenhouse can be constructed for producing consumables for the human crew.
Of course the above leaves out a lot of details, but this is essentially what modern society requires to sustain the industrial age. We need to do the equivalent of using a blacksmith shop or machine shop to replicate itself to make such a base sustainable.
Just as with any branch of science, discard the religions that are riddled with inconsistancies. This will remove a large number of religions, as long as the searcher is willing to dig deep.
I'm Catholic for two reasons: 1), I was brought up Catholic and 2), I didn't find any apparent inconsistancies that could be resolved through effort on my part (e.g. bible study, church history, etc.).
One can argue that this still leaves a number of equally valid religions. That is where personal experience steps in, as I have family members with experiences that are pretty difficult to explain using just science.That being said, I believe God is not limited in what he can do and that He may choose to bring others into heaven with Him who are not Catholic.
"Pascal's wager is bunk, and always has been."
This doesn't mean you throw out all scientific theories just because they can't all be true! After all, whether you follow Einstein, Newton, Heim, or someone else, the results can still be close enough for the application at hand.
"Isn't somatic stem cell research ok in the U.S.?"
Yes. Somatic (adult) stem cell research is even endorsed by many religious groups (e.g. mainstream protestant and Catholicsm both support adult stem cell research). The main conflict is over the use of embryonic stem cells due to unresolved conflict about when human life begins.
However, the mainstream media distorts the issue and tries to make the conflict appear to be either for or against stem cell research in general. It almost always reports on how some people believe embryonic stem cell research is not funded by the government. Often within a single article, a reporter touts the potential benefits of "embryonic stem cells" and mentioning that "stem cell research" is not being funded by the government. Some attribute this to an apparent desire by the media to report on health issues in a manner that is favorable, or at least not harmful, to views on abortion.
The truth is that most cases of successful stem cell therapies that have been developed use adult stem cells (embryonic stem cells tend to cause tumors) and that adult stem cell research IS funded by the government.
"And if you think water can be mined in an "economic" fashion, you need to investigate the process of mining and extraction to realize that these notions are NUTS!!!!"
One could come to the same conclusion if they looked at existing mining operations. For example, it can take a ton of ore to produce only 6 pounds of copper in currently operating mines. 200 years ago, nobody would have thought it would be worthwhile to pursue such deposits and make any money. Now they run such mines for only a few dollars per pound.
Even if early in-situ resource utilage is inefficient, it lays the groundwork for future developments. It is unrealistic to expect a technology to be conceived of and deployed all at once with all the bugs worked out.
We also need to think outside the box. Who says we have to use traditional chemical rockets that use a fuel and oxydizer? As long as we have a reaction mass, we can generate thrust. Engines that are inappropriate for atmospheric operation may be useful in the vacuum of space.
Doesn't metal kind of, uh, heat up and spark like crazy when you put it in a microwave? that doesn't sound like very effective armour to me.
Exactly why you don't put metal in a microwave or wear non-ferrous metal in an MRI (MRIs transmit RF energy with a wavelength of about 36 cm). Millimeter waves are in between the two, so you would probably get very hot, very quick.
How do you like your tinfoil hat now?
Shields, on the other hand, might be effective. Hold a piece of sheet metal in front of yourself in contact with the ground and you might be better off.
It may cost thousands of dollars per pound to launch, but custom engineering the equipment to be used is also expensive.
Consider an example computer system: a person can buy a ruggedized laptop for a few thousand dollars that costs a couple thousand dollars. If it weighs 8 or 9 pounds, the total cost to put in orbit would be around $100k.
Consider a similar computer system that is developed from scratch as rad-hard. If a team of 4 engineers spends a year working on it, you've already spent around $500K. Both of these systems have equivalent costs if the ruggedized laptop had 4 extra pounds of shielding launched with it.
My numbers are just examples and a more in-depth analysis would be needed to see exactly how much engineering effort was saved by x pounds of shielding. The point is that this idea should be looked at more often; Bigelow is the first major effort I've heard of that uses this strategy and he is definitely the type to crunch the costs to see what is most cost effective.
I know a problem with fuel depots have been cryogenic storage of liquid propellant. They have a limited lifespan because they keep venting fuel as it warms up.
What if we went with solid or non-cryogenic fuels? E.g. the fuel used in the space shuttle boosters or liquids such as kerosene and nitrous oxide? Liquid transfer shouldn't be too hard if they use a centrifuge or a flexible bladder in a pressure vessel (e.g. like squeezing a juice box to get the juice to squirt out of the straw). Solid fuel catriges may even be able to be moved around and manually loaded by astronauts.
Sure it needs more radiation protection. So build a bigger launcher and add shielding (e.g. water blankets). Then you get:
A) a spacecraft that is safer for people B) a way to use off-the shelf electronics C) additional water reservoir (can be used in emergency)
If you compare the extra consumables used to build a larger rocket to the extra engineering effort needed to make rad-hard systems, scaling up the size is usually cheaper. Bigelow is apply the above concepts to his inflatable systems.
"The lack of money isn't necessarily a bad thing it makes the whole program a much more sustainable effort."
Immense funding boosted the development of integrated circuits for use in the Apollo lunar lander due to size and weight constraints. At one time, 90% of all ICs in _existance_ were in the landing computers of the lunar landers. Definitely a case of more money rapidly advancing a technology that became available and much cheaper because of the large investment.
Big investment is a good idea in some cases. Using it to duplicate development (e.g. Ares 1) doesn't really benefit us because it is spending a bunch on something that is already done or in development by others (human-rated Lockheed Martin and Boeing EELV, SpaceX Falcon, etc.). NASA should spend the money on buying their services when ready and focussing their development on the heavy lifter (Ares 5) instead of developing redundant abilities.
We have a shuttle, now we need a real space ship that can be reused. Building these single-use spacecraft that return to earth at the end of every mission doesn't make sense for exploring. How long would it have taken to explore the earth with single-use ships that had to come back to their home port after every single jaunt?
We need to follow the patterns of more adventurous peoples, such as the Norsemen in the Middle Ages. They built longboats which were some of the first craft able to move about the Atlantic. They could be beached anywhere and were simple enough that they could be fixed with materials that were commonplace if damaged. They took these things all the way to America and through the Mediterranean Sea to the Middle East!
We need a real space ship, not just expendable canoes. We have a harbor under construction (the ISS), although it is more of an outpost at the moment. We next need to get a supply depot were we can start storing extra consumables for a true space ship. Once we have that, we can start building on our existing infrastructure instead of starting from scratch every time we want to do something different.
It's good to have long term goals, but it is wasting time to make detailed plans for anything more than a few years out. Lets build the capability to move to nearby places of interest (e.g. Moon, Mars, and near earth asteroids.) Once we build a little ship, we can build bigger ones for destinations that are further away.
I went to a talk last night by the flight director and one of the astronauts from the last shuttle mission (STS-115). Afterwards, I spoke with the astronaut and asked her what NASA thought about Bigelow, SpaceX, etc. Her response? They aren't direct competition right now, and she hopes Ares is up an running before commercial human orbital flights happen.
I realize this is only one person that I spoke with, but it sure sounds like the old attitude "as only NASA can". But if they keep on the path they are on where there are a thousand or more people at mission control for a single shuttle launch (note that mission control is only for flight operations and not for launch or final runway approach), I really don't have much confidence in their new plans. This is more employees than SpaceX and Bigelow are projected to use _together_ to have launch operations and run a space station. Think about the cost: e.g. 1000 flight controllers+support staff x $150K/year salary = $150 million dollars/year JUST FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS! (and $150K per year per person is probably a conservative average for total salary+benefits for each employee.
I predict that we will see MASSIVE changes at NASA in 5-10 years as commercial efforts start regular human flights. Congress may realize they can cut NASA's human spaceflight budget by 2/3 if they outsource. Alternatively, NASA and its contractors might succeed in lobbying Congress to legislate commercial efforts into the ground before they get a good foothold, just to maintain the status quo. A less likely (but more desirable) outcome is a lot of the NEO stuff (e.g. ISS resupply) being outsourced and NASA buying Bigelow modules for more advanced missions (e.g. return to moon, asteroid rondesvous, Mars, etc).
The above article at the above link has a quote indicating that physical constants may be different if one were to travel along the different dimensions described by Heim Theory. If that was the case, the speed of light may be raised and the trip to Pluto shortened. Note that this would not actually require traveling faster than light, just faster that light as measured in "our" vacuum.
Think of it as a real theory which predicts warp-drive-like effects.
I think a lot of these have happened because people try to be careful with the packaging in case they want to return it.
I wonder if a person could walk from the checkout line straight to the service counter and have them open it, telling them they want to keep the packaging in case a return is needed. Maybe if this happened enough times, stores might start talking to their suppliers.
"In fact, recently, somewhere near Africa (I think) there was a cruise ship that was attacked by pirates (real pirates). They used some kind of acoustic defense to repel the attack."
The suggestion I made was referring to the possiblity that it could be used as an under-water torpedo defense. The pirates were using fast-attack boats and were repelled by pain from the incredibly loud sound that was projected at them.
science -noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Several of the above definitions (e.g. 1 & 4 together, 6 by itself) essentialy boil down to a set of practices and an accompanying set of beliefs (a.k.a. knowlege) supported by those beliefs. Stating that "science is the scientific method" is sort of like saying "religion is going to church"; both of these statements are too limiting to be true by themselves, since they leave out the accompanying set of beliefs. The scientific method is useless without some subject knowlege ahead of time and meaningless if no new knowlege is found as the result . Likewise, religion is useless if a practitioner has no belief in what they are doing and meaningless if they think it won't matter.
"science itself operates under the assumption that you cannot prove a negative"
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. If it were true, how could we confidently say that rotting meat doesn't automatically transform/spawn maggots? What about falsifiable theorems? My understanding is that part of the scientific method involves accepting or rejecting a hypothesis based on experimental results.
As far as the beginning of things, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that things just "always were". Other than mathematical concepts or arbitrary amounts used to define measurement systems, I'm not aware of any "constants" that have been or can be proven to be a true constant, i.e. they have always been the same and will always be the same. I have heard numerous findings that suggest they change over time, suggesting that things haven't always been the same.
How is the belief/hypothesis (A) that the universe "just always existed" more plausible than the belief/hypothesis (B) that there is a creator? If there is no scientific evidence for (A), why should it be lent any crediblity when there is anecdotal evidence for (B)?
As for con-artists, victims of such often feel let down and want to reject everything that had to do with them. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that the stronger the initial belief/hope, the harder the fall and stronger the disappointment. However, one shouldn't reject out of hand everything that the con-artist used as being tainted or false, just as politics shouldn't be rejected because it has practitioners who regularly lie through their teeth. If such were the case, we should reject science for the various hoaxes that have been perpetrated on the public. Most people agree that rejecting science for such a reason is unreasonable. Likewise, rejecting all religion as un-credible for the actions of some that have been shown to be con-artists or delusional isn't justified.
My initial point of my.sig is that science includes actions and beliefs that influence a practitioner and that one can define religion in the same manner. Furthermore, practicing one action/belief system at the same time or as a subset of another action/belief system is a common practice. For instance, one can be Catholic and practice science at the same time, such as the monks at the Vatican observatory in Arizona.
As long as there are those who say "I put my faith in science",
Seems to me that there have been a few cases of the navy using "experimental high powered sonar that caused extreme distress to marine life. Several incidents caused dolphins, etc. to beach themselves; they were found to be bleeding from the ears. Of course that portion of the sea was closed to the public during the trials for security reasons.
I'm not saying that the navy was doing levitation experiments, but wouldn't you expect it to look something like that if they were?
Just occurred to me that, even if not practical for levitation, it may be practical for torpedo defense (e.g. forming a "shield" under water), especially since the effect works better in denser materials like water.
I believe you are referring to the scientific method. However, if I walk into any science class, whether it is grade school science or a college course, I guarantee that you will find more than just the method being taught. They include other things such as commonly found results, observations, and theories that may or may not have been proven.
"science is a methodology based on the faith that the real world exists"
Interesting statement-why use the word faith? From dictionary.com:
faith, n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Now, definition for religion (also from dictionary.com):
religion -noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7. religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
What "proof" do you have that the world actually exists as you perceive it? How do you know everything you've been told in science is actually true? History is full of many hoaxes that have hoodwinked a great number of people (peltdown man, anyone?) and theories that are held true for long periods of time before being discarded. Some are even discarded by their authors, then picked up again by others (Einstein's theories).
"Science is a religion" refers to an unshakable belief some people often show that only things which can be proven actually exist. It is this attitude that "proved" human flight was impossible and that rockets couldn't fly in a vacuum. What they forget is that once something has been done, it has actually been done, even if it seems to be unreproducible.
Faith that the real world exists is still faith. You may counter that you can actually experience the real world. However, many people with a faith in God say they have had experiences that are just as real.
The "hard" sciences are notorious for their lack of hard, reproducible theories about the human mind or even life. Understanding which portions of the brain are involved with various activities is not the same thing as being able to understand exactly what makes it work. A thorough understanding of a process or mechanism would allow one to reproduce it, given proper materials. But how to explain things like premonitions, which has demonstrably altered people's behavior in a manner that shows the premonition was tied to a real event?
Mainstream science seems to pick and choose subjects that are safe to explore and things that are not. If you ask around, I'm sure you can find examples of people reacting to "a feeling" or a dream that ended up being tied to a real-world phenonmenon (e.g. my wife lifted up t
If you want to tip over a boat, start rocking back and forth, adding energy with each back and forth motion. I know what keeps the boat in the up or down state; what keeps the votex from from staying somewhere inbetween? Do you have to un-rock then engergy from it too?
Now I can tell my wife that the time I'm spending getting my laptop to function again has been proven scientifically to be a good idea! (I tend to use my laptop while lounging on the couch or in an overstuffed chair; until it's fixed, I'm stuck using a desktop system while sitting in a chair with a broken back support).
Wait, I guess that would entail telling her I read it while wasting tim^h^h^h^h^h^h^h reading/.
It appears that Goodwin's law is not invoked for the first comment in a discussion. This come logically from the requirement that Goodwin's law apply to a discussion that involves the Nazi/Hitler example as a means to refute another comment.
Being the first comment, an off-by-one exception occurs, resulting in an aborted termination of the thread.
Isn't this the same criteria used for "well-respected, peer-reviewed journals"? You can abuse any such journal, just as wikipedia sometimes is.
However, wikipedia is different from such journals because it is a commons which is shared by people with differing viewpoints. It doesn't get the same bias that some journals may get where submitters and readers gravitate towards one of several different publications with slightly different biases (e.g. some journals favor publishing articles related to global warming as a concequence of human activities while others favor articles about it being a more natural phenomonon).
Debate is healthy, as long as it is reasoned. Wikipedia's nature enforces reason on debates about its contents. If a wikipedia entry gets edited by a person with a bias, a person with an opposing bias deals with it directly by editing the _same_ article, instead of proposing an alternate view somewhere else where it may not be seen by readers of the article. This beats the status quo , where oposing sides tend to just keep shouting their message without having any true debate.
Wikipedia is used all the time in the IP lawfirm where I work. If we need a definition or a quick rundown on a field before filing a patent, it's a good, well linked source.
-Journalism How many accumulated news broadcasts do you think there are? Makeing some gross simplifications, assume there are 1000 stations that create 3 half hour news broadcasts every day and multiply by the number days they've been broadcasting (20 years gives more than 7000 days) and you get a total of over 10 million hours, more than the total you've listed above. Note that my estimates are conservative and the actual may be as much as a couple orders of magnitude more.
-Non-produced video The above estimates do not include all the video that is recorded but not used in final cuts. The amount of video actually recorded could be 10 times that which is actually used.
-Non-commercial video Consider other sources of video, such as war footage shot from planes, weather satellites, and security cameras. These types of cameras are constantly rolling in some situations.
-Home movies There have been at lease several million video cameras sold. Even if each averages only 10 hours of time, that still makes tens of millions of hours.
-Other sources Other sources also exist, such as cell phone cameras, machiname, flash, etc. Not necessarily a large percentage of the total yet, but increasing every year.
Seeing as all the above have a tremendous backlog and continue to produce more every year, as well as an increasing supply of each, I give very little weight to any statement that claims some future ability to hold all the world's media-it's a moving target that is growing geometrically at a rate that probably exceeds Moore's law.
Slashdot Mirror
"I suppose my skepticism of such claims of consistency comes from my experience that, when there is an apparent inconsistency that is truly hard to explain, the religious faith of the person claiming the inconsistency is resolvable always precedes their acceptance of the logical explanation for its resolution."
In my experience, this doesn't always happen. Most often, the people I encounter don't really want to dig into the details of their faith and have a deep discussion about it. In the occasions that they do, I usually encounter an "ostrich", a blusterer, or a thinker. The ostrich pretty much tries to pretend that what you're saying hasn't been said. The blusterer gets flustered and tends to counter attack without refuting a tough question or point. The thinker pursues the question until they can refute it or they change the way they do things.
I prefer talking with other thinkers, as it keeps me sharp and may lead them to a "more-consistant religion". Lately, it seems I've been hearing of more converts to Catholicsm among thinkers in other churches as their own churches stray further from their routes and develop (more) inconsistancies.
As long as you can find silica and metal ore on the moon, you have raw materials for doing just about anything. Water ice is nice, but you don't really need a whole lot if you have a good recycling system.
Silica-has oxygen for rockets and breating, can be used as a basic construction material, and can be refined to grow silicon. Silicon is useful for creating exports (e.g. low gravity can be useful for growing crystals) and creating solar cells and computer components.
Metal ore-can be collected from meteors, etc. and refined to obtain copper, iron, nickel, etc. and used for construction, as conductors, for building motors, air-tight seals, etc.
The above two catagories can produce just about everything needed for producing a moon base and exports for a lunar-earth economy. A greenhouse can be constructed for producing consumables for the human crew.
Of course the above leaves out a lot of details, but this is essentially what modern society requires to sustain the industrial age. We need to do the equivalent of using a blacksmith shop or machine shop to replicate itself to make such a base sustainable.
Just as with any branch of science, discard the religions that are riddled with inconsistancies. This will remove a large number of religions, as long as the searcher is willing to dig deep.
I'm Catholic for two reasons: 1), I was brought up Catholic and 2), I didn't find any apparent inconsistancies that could be resolved through effort on my part (e.g. bible study, church history, etc.).
One can argue that this still leaves a number of equally valid religions. That is where personal experience steps in, as I have family members with experiences that are pretty difficult to explain using just science.That being said, I believe God is not limited in what he can do and that He may choose to bring others into heaven with Him who are not Catholic.
"Pascal's wager is bunk, and always has been."
This doesn't mean you throw out all scientific theories just because they can't all be true! After all, whether you follow Einstein, Newton, Heim, or someone else, the results can still be close enough for the application at hand.
"Isn't somatic stem cell research ok in the U.S.?"
Yes. Somatic (adult) stem cell research is even endorsed by many religious groups (e.g. mainstream protestant and Catholicsm both support adult stem cell research). The main conflict is over the use of embryonic stem cells due to unresolved conflict about when human life begins.
However, the mainstream media distorts the issue and tries to make the conflict appear to be either for or against stem cell research in general. It almost always reports on how some people believe embryonic stem cell research is not funded by the government. Often within a single article, a reporter touts the potential benefits of "embryonic stem cells" and mentioning that "stem cell research" is not being funded by the government. Some attribute this to an apparent desire by the media to report on health issues in a manner that is favorable, or at least not harmful, to views on abortion.
The truth is that most cases of successful stem cell therapies that have been developed use adult stem cells (embryonic stem cells tend to cause tumors) and that adult stem cell research IS funded by the government.
"And if you think water can be mined in an "economic" fashion, you need to investigate the process of mining and extraction to realize that these notions are NUTS!!!!"
One could come to the same conclusion if they looked at existing mining operations. For example, it can take a ton of ore to produce only 6 pounds of copper in currently operating mines. 200 years ago, nobody would have thought it would be worthwhile to pursue such deposits and make any money. Now they run such mines for only a few dollars per pound.
Even if early in-situ resource utilage is inefficient, it lays the groundwork for future developments. It is unrealistic to expect a technology to be conceived of and deployed all at once with all the bugs worked out.
We also need to think outside the box. Who says we have to use traditional chemical rockets that use a fuel and oxydizer? As long as we have a reaction mass, we can generate thrust. Engines that are inappropriate for atmospheric operation may be useful in the vacuum of space.
Doesn't metal kind of, uh, heat up and spark like crazy when you put it in a microwave? that doesn't sound like very effective armour to me.
Exactly why you don't put metal in a microwave or wear non-ferrous metal in an MRI (MRIs transmit RF energy with a wavelength of about 36 cm). Millimeter waves are in between the two, so you would probably get very hot, very quick.
How do you like your tinfoil hat now?
Shields, on the other hand, might be effective. Hold a piece of sheet metal in front of yourself in contact with the ground and you might be better off.
What is your source? Not doubting, you just seem to have pretty detailed info in this area and I am interested in learning more.
It may cost thousands of dollars per pound to launch, but custom engineering the equipment to be used is also expensive.
Consider an example computer system: a person can buy a ruggedized laptop for a few thousand dollars that costs a couple thousand dollars. If it weighs 8 or 9 pounds, the total cost to put in orbit would be around $100k.
Consider a similar computer system that is developed from scratch as rad-hard. If a team of 4 engineers spends a year working on it, you've already spent around $500K. Both of these systems have equivalent costs if the ruggedized laptop had 4 extra pounds of shielding launched with it.
My numbers are just examples and a more in-depth analysis would be needed to see exactly how much engineering effort was saved by x pounds of shielding. The point is that this idea should be looked at more often; Bigelow is the first major effort I've heard of that uses this strategy and he is definitely the type to crunch the costs to see what is most cost effective.
I know a problem with fuel depots have been cryogenic storage of liquid propellant. They have a limited lifespan because they keep venting fuel as it warms up.
What if we went with solid or non-cryogenic fuels? E.g. the fuel used in the space shuttle boosters or liquids such as kerosene and nitrous oxide? Liquid transfer shouldn't be too hard if they use a centrifuge or a flexible bladder in a pressure vessel (e.g. like squeezing a juice box to get the juice to squirt out of the straw). Solid fuel catriges may even be able to be moved around and manually loaded by astronauts.
Sure it needs more radiation protection. So build a bigger launcher and add shielding (e.g. water blankets). Then you get:
A) a spacecraft that is safer for people
B) a way to use off-the shelf electronics
C) additional water reservoir (can be used in emergency)
If you compare the extra consumables used to build a larger rocket to the extra engineering effort needed to make rad-hard systems, scaling up the size is usually cheaper. Bigelow is apply the above concepts to his inflatable systems.
"The lack of money isn't necessarily a bad thing it makes the whole program a much more sustainable effort."
Immense funding boosted the development of integrated circuits for use in the Apollo lunar lander due to size and weight constraints. At one time, 90% of all ICs in _existance_ were in the landing computers of the lunar landers. Definitely a case of more money rapidly advancing a technology that became available and much cheaper because of the large investment.
Big investment is a good idea in some cases. Using it to duplicate development (e.g. Ares 1) doesn't really benefit us because it is spending a bunch on something that is already done or in development by others (human-rated Lockheed Martin and Boeing EELV, SpaceX Falcon, etc.). NASA should spend the money on buying their services when ready and focussing their development on the heavy lifter (Ares 5) instead of developing redundant abilities.
We have a shuttle, now we need a real space ship that can be reused. Building these single-use spacecraft that return to earth at the end of every mission doesn't make sense for exploring. How long would it have taken to explore the earth with single-use ships that had to come back to their home port after every single jaunt?
We need to follow the patterns of more adventurous peoples, such as the Norsemen in the Middle Ages. They built longboats which were some of the first craft able to move about the Atlantic. They could be beached anywhere and were simple enough that they could be fixed with materials that were commonplace if damaged. They took these things all the way to America and through the Mediterranean Sea to the Middle East!
We need a real space ship, not just expendable canoes. We have a harbor under construction (the ISS), although it is more of an outpost at the moment. We next need to get a supply depot were we can start storing extra consumables for a true space ship. Once we have that, we can start building on our existing infrastructure instead of starting from scratch every time we want to do something different.
It's good to have long term goals, but it is wasting time to make detailed plans for anything more than a few years out. Lets build the capability to move to nearby places of interest (e.g. Moon, Mars, and near earth asteroids.) Once we build a little ship, we can build bigger ones for destinations that are further away.
I went to a talk last night by the flight director and one of the astronauts from the last shuttle mission (STS-115). Afterwards, I spoke with the astronaut and asked her what NASA thought about Bigelow, SpaceX, etc. Her response? They aren't direct competition right now, and she hopes Ares is up an running before commercial human orbital flights happen.
I realize this is only one person that I spoke with, but it sure sounds like the old attitude "as only NASA can". But if they keep on the path they are on where there are a thousand or more people at mission control for a single shuttle launch (note that mission control is only for flight operations and not for launch or final runway approach), I really don't have much confidence in their new plans. This is more employees than SpaceX and Bigelow are projected to use _together_ to have launch operations and run a space station. Think about the cost: e.g. 1000 flight controllers+support staff x $150K/year salary = $150 million dollars/year JUST FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS! (and $150K per year per person is probably a conservative average for total salary+benefits for each employee.
I predict that we will see MASSIVE changes at NASA in 5-10 years as commercial efforts start regular human flights. Congress may realize they can cut NASA's human spaceflight budget by 2/3 if they outsource. Alternatively, NASA and its contractors might succeed in lobbying Congress to legislate commercial efforts into the ground before they get a good foothold, just to maintain the status quo. A less likely (but more desirable) outcome is a lot of the NEO stuff (e.g. ISS resupply) being outsourced and NASA buying Bigelow modules for more advanced missions (e.g. return to moon, asteroid rondesvous, Mars, etc).
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.2 00
The above article at the above link has a quote indicating that physical constants may be different if one were to travel along the different dimensions described by Heim Theory. If that was the case, the speed of light may be raised and the trip to Pluto shortened. Note that this would not actually require traveling faster than light, just faster that light as measured in "our" vacuum.
Think of it as a real theory which predicts warp-drive-like effects.
I think a lot of these have happened because people try to be careful with the packaging in case they want to return it.
I wonder if a person could walk from the checkout line straight to the service counter and have them open it, telling them they want to keep the packaging in case a return is needed. Maybe if this happened enough times, stores might start talking to their suppliers.
"In fact, recently, somewhere near Africa (I think) there was a cruise ship that was attacked by pirates (real pirates). They used some kind of acoustic defense to repel the attack."
The system you are referring to was an open-air sonic defense, nothing to do with water other than it is sometimes mounted on ships. http://defense-update.com/products/l/LRAD.htm
The suggestion I made was referring to the possiblity that it could be used as an under-water torpedo defense. The pirates were using fast-attack boats and were repelled by pain from the incredibly loud sound that was projected at them.
From dictionary.com:
.sig is that science includes actions and beliefs that influence a practitioner and that one can define religion in the same manner. Furthermore, practicing one action/belief system at the same time or as a subset of another action/belief system is a common practice. For instance, one can be Catholic and practice science at the same time, such as the monks at the Vatican observatory in Arizona.
science -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Several of the above definitions (e.g. 1 & 4 together, 6 by itself) essentialy boil down to a set of practices and an accompanying set of beliefs (a.k.a. knowlege) supported by those beliefs. Stating that "science is the scientific method" is sort of like saying "religion is going to church"; both of these statements are too limiting to be true by themselves, since they leave out the accompanying set of beliefs. The scientific method is useless without some subject knowlege ahead of time and meaningless if no new knowlege is found as the result . Likewise, religion is useless if a practitioner has no belief in what they are doing and meaningless if they think it won't matter.
"science itself operates under the assumption that you cannot prove a negative"
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. If it were true, how could we confidently say that rotting meat doesn't automatically transform/spawn maggots? What about falsifiable theorems?
My understanding is that part of the scientific method involves accepting or rejecting a hypothesis based on experimental results.
As far as the beginning of things, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that things just "always were". Other than mathematical concepts or arbitrary amounts used to define measurement systems, I'm not aware of any "constants" that have been or can be proven to be a true constant, i.e. they have always been the same and will always be the same. I have heard numerous findings that suggest they change over time, suggesting that things haven't always been the same.
How is the belief/hypothesis (A) that the universe "just always existed" more plausible than the belief/hypothesis (B) that there is a creator? If there is no scientific evidence for (A), why should it be lent any crediblity when there is anecdotal evidence for (B)?
As for con-artists, victims of such often feel let down and want to reject everything that had to do with them. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that the stronger the initial belief/hope, the harder the fall and stronger the disappointment. However, one shouldn't reject out of hand everything that the con-artist used as being tainted or false, just as politics shouldn't be rejected because it has practitioners who regularly lie through their teeth. If such were the case, we should reject science for the various hoaxes that have been perpetrated on the public. Most people agree that rejecting science for such a reason is unreasonable. Likewise, rejecting all religion as un-credible for the actions of some that have been shown to be con-artists or delusional isn't justified.
My initial point of my
As long as there are those who say "I put my faith in science",
Seems to me that there have been a few cases of the navy using "experimental high powered sonar that caused extreme distress to marine life. Several incidents caused dolphins, etc. to beach themselves; they were found to be bleeding from the ears. Of course that portion of the sea was closed to the public during the trials for security reasons.
I'm not saying that the navy was doing levitation experiments, but wouldn't you expect it to look something like that if they were?
Just occurred to me that, even if not practical for levitation, it may be practical for torpedo defense (e.g. forming a "shield" under water), especially since the effect works better in denser materials like water.
I believe you are referring to the scientific method. However, if I walk into any science class, whether it is grade school science or a college course, I guarantee that you will find more than just the method being taught. They include other things such as commonly found results, observations, and theories that may or may not have been proven.
"science is a methodology based on the faith that the real world exists"
Interesting statement-why use the word faith? From dictionary.com:
faith, n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Now, definition for religion (also from dictionary.com):
religion -noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
What "proof" do you have that the world actually exists as you perceive it? How do you know everything you've been told in science is actually true? History is full of many hoaxes that have hoodwinked a great number of people (peltdown man, anyone?) and theories that are held true for long periods of time before being discarded. Some are even discarded by their authors, then picked up again by others (Einstein's theories).
"Science is a religion" refers to an unshakable belief some people often show that only things which can be proven actually exist. It is this attitude that "proved" human flight was impossible and that rockets couldn't fly in a vacuum. What they forget is that once something has been done, it has actually been done, even if it seems to be unreproducible.
Faith that the real world exists is still faith. You may counter that you can actually experience the real world. However, many people with a faith in God say they have had experiences that are just as real.
The "hard" sciences are notorious for their lack of hard, reproducible theories about the human mind or even life. Understanding which portions of the brain are involved with various activities is not the same thing as being able to understand exactly what makes it work. A thorough understanding of a process or mechanism would allow one to reproduce it, given proper materials. But how to explain things like premonitions, which has demonstrably altered people's behavior in a manner that shows the premonition was tied to a real event?
Mainstream science seems to pick and choose subjects that are safe to explore and things that are not. If you ask around, I'm sure you can find examples of people reacting to "a feeling" or a dream that ended up being tied to a real-world phenonmenon (e.g. my wife lifted up t
If you want to tip over a boat, start rocking back and forth, adding energy with each back and forth motion. I know what keeps the boat in the up or down state; what keeps the votex from from staying somewhere inbetween? Do you have to un-rock then engergy from it too?
Now I can tell my wife that the time I'm spending getting my laptop to function again has been proven scientifically to be a good idea! (I tend to use my laptop while lounging on the couch or in an overstuffed chair; until it's fixed, I'm stuck using a desktop system while sitting in a chair with a broken back support).
/.
Wait, I guess that would entail telling her I read it while wasting tim^h^h^h^h^h^h^h reading
Nevermind.
It appears that Goodwin's law is not invoked for the first comment in a discussion. This come logically from the requirement that Goodwin's law apply to a discussion that involves the Nazi/Hitler example as a means to refute another comment.
Being the first comment, an off-by-one exception occurs, resulting in an aborted termination of the thread.
Isn't this the same criteria used for "well-respected, peer-reviewed journals"? You can abuse any such journal, just as wikipedia sometimes is.
However, wikipedia is different from such journals because it is a commons which is shared by people with differing viewpoints. It doesn't get the same bias that some journals may get where submitters and readers gravitate towards one of several different publications with slightly different biases (e.g. some journals favor publishing articles related to global warming as a concequence of human activities while others favor articles about it being a more natural phenomonon).
Debate is healthy, as long as it is reasoned. Wikipedia's nature enforces reason on debates about its contents. If a wikipedia entry gets edited by a person with a bias, a person with an opposing bias deals with it directly by editing the _same_ article, instead of proposing an alternate view somewhere else where it may not be seen by readers of the article. This beats the status quo , where oposing sides tend to just keep shouting their message without having any true debate.
Wikipedia is used all the time in the IP lawfirm where I work. If we need a definition or a quick rundown on a field before filing a patent, it's a good, well linked source.
A few things you are missing:
-Journalism
How many accumulated news broadcasts do you think there are? Makeing some gross simplifications, assume there are 1000 stations that create 3 half hour news broadcasts every day and multiply by the number days they've been broadcasting (20 years gives more than 7000 days) and you get a total of over 10 million hours, more than the total you've listed above. Note that my estimates are conservative and the actual may be as much as a couple orders of magnitude more.
-Non-produced video
The above estimates do not include all the video that is recorded but not used in final cuts. The amount of video actually recorded could be 10 times that which is actually used.
-Non-commercial video
Consider other sources of video, such as war footage shot from planes, weather satellites, and security cameras. These types of cameras are constantly rolling in some situations.
-Home movies
There have been at lease several million video cameras sold. Even if each averages only 10 hours of time, that still makes tens of millions of hours.
-Other sources
Other sources also exist, such as cell phone cameras, machiname, flash, etc. Not necessarily a large percentage of the total yet, but increasing every year.
Seeing as all the above have a tremendous backlog and continue to produce more every year, as well as an increasing supply of each, I give very little weight to any statement that claims some future ability to hold all the world's media-it's a moving target that is growing geometrically at a rate that probably exceeds Moore's law.