"We sent mission xyz to rondesvous with iron/nickel asteroid foo. We successfully used a solar oven to refine the material and produce x kg of steel alloy pqr."
I keep hearing about in-situ resouce utilization, but it's not going to happen if we just keep sending probes that take pictures and measurments and don't actually do anything. Science is important, but it is a lot easier to piggyback science on an engineering mission than it is to use science-only missions to pave the way for something useful. Science probes have their place, but how many probes do we need to tell us that there is water ice on the moon and Mars? If we did missions to take advantage of what we already know, it's not that big of a step to do the same thing in a different place (e.g. sending a mission to Titan after developing the technology on Mars and the moon would mostly require a bigger rocket and powerplant that doesn't rely on the sun).
I can't help but notice how much NASA has been in the news lately with their scientists supposedly being muzzled for speaking out about global warming. NASA started as an engineering agency, but has been having public image problems (and politicians micromanaging) ever since it made science a priority at the end of Apollo.
Why not have NASA focus again on engineering (i.e. putting people in space is primarily an engineering task) that pushes the edge of what is possible (e.g. manned lunar/Mars/asteroid rondesvous, etc) and leave the earth science to other countries that have fewer ties between their poiticians and their science programs (how about somewhere that actually signed Kyoto?).
Too many people seem to think that being opposed to experimenting with fetal or embrionic stem cells means oposition to experimenting with all types/sources of stem cells. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
Most people who want restrictions in place are opposed to using _embrios_ or _fetuses_ as the source of the cells; getting stem cells from other sources is OK with most people.
If scientists can change the way they do experiments on animals because of groups like PETA, why can't they just choose a less controversial source of stem cells?
Note the problems with embrionic cells vs adult cells here
Reminds me of the show, "Jackass". Why does anyone watch that? (if you don't see American TV, the show is essentially a series of home-movies of someone apparently striving to do everything their mother said to avoid).
Who would _you_ elect as village idiot of the global economy?
I for one see a huge market in the entertainment/tourism industry. Picture what atheletes could accomplish in a 1/6th g arena. Anyone could dunk a basket ball or hit a ball out of the park. Ballet dancers could do 20 foot leaps on stage. You'd be able to play lazertag or paintball like the characters in first-person shooters (i.e. drop from 30 feet without injury). Rock climbing would be a breeze even for people that are 100 lbs overweight. The low g would be a dream come true for special effects people.
It would also be a great place for a spa or medical recouperation clinic. Lighter g would certainly place less stress on stressed-out and healing bodies and the view of the stars and moonscape is absolutely amazing.
If you can get rich people to the moon to take part in these kinds of activities at a price they are willing to pay (say, sever hundred grand/trip)or to produce entertainment for the masses, the masses won't be far behind. After all, 5-star exclusive resorts aren't just populated be rich people; they need support staff to cater to their every whim too.
When I was 8 or 10, I ran into an electric fence when soaking wet (long story). Anyway, all I remember for sure is that a) the voltage was cranked "way up" because the cattle kept getting out and b) it took at least 5 minutes to get the power shut off after I got tangeled up in it. The only thing that saved me from permanent scars was that the wire that got wrapped around me (I ran into a gate and it coiled about me when it unhooked) kept shorting to the the ground (i.e. dirt) while I was thrashing about...
I know that our former CEO had an anual salary of >$10 million. However, adjusting for vacation pay, weekends, launch costs >$100k and ballooning CEO saleries (which may result in $100 million/year salaries in 5-10 years), I think my logic still applies.
Travel to anywhere in the world in 2 hours would be a great selling point. Granted, the first X-prize class vehicles won't be capable of that, but they are most of the way there once they get out of the atmosphere.
I bet that inter-continental trips will be shortly behind the X-prize (i.e. 5-10 years) for business execs that don't want to ride in a plane for 36 hours and want to write off a thrill ride with a zero-g lay-over as a business expense. Heck, some of CEOs with large saleries might actually show "good business sense" by cutting a day or two of traveling out of a 3-5 day business trip (they make $300,000/per day at $100 million/year saleries).
The article noted that the transgenic mice had thicker skin and ears than normal. Sounds like "the Thing" to me (you know, the big orange Marvel character that looked like his skin was made out of rock).
I can't point you at the specific reference, but I believe they are incorporating cold gas thrusters, similiar to the MMU (manned manuvering unit) that astronauts use on space walks. Virtually all the X-prize vehicles are planning to use them (although I think the Black Armadillo relies on atmospheric drag for re-entry orientation).
This bring a whole new meaning to "Can I see your books?" NASA thought they were having problems with their accounting problems; I'd like to see them try to deal with publishing their research!
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a VERY good thing. Just think of the BILLIONS of dollars in research funds shelled out to corporations that never let the results see the light of day (outside their own firm). This could be HUGE in the private/amature space development efforts.
I just wonder whether it applies to all the funds that have already been spent and whether companies will be able to negotiate exemptions into their development contracts with the government.
I'm quite sure that I'd never seen an animated paper clip spew improbable advice at me before the MS implementation.
Seriously though, MS has probably spent more on market research for regular Joe user than any other big name technology company. Several others had good ideas, but I don't think many come close to funding the amount of pure research in user interfaces.
Of cource, there are rumors that they fund all that research for the same reason that the US pays former Soviet scientists--busy work to keep them from working for their enemies.
What effect would sand storms have on solar collection? Haven't some sand storms been observed that are months or years in lenght?
On the other hand, the atmosphere is thinner would lead to less loss due to defraction. Plus, it may be easier to build solar concentrators in the reduced gravity (maybe even inflatable structures?).
I don't remeber the year (mid seventies), but astronauts had to do an EVA on the first Skylab mission to complete deployment of a solar panel and another one later to set up a parasol-like shadeover some components that were overheating from sun exposure.
If its the size of 1 mm, shouldn't it be called a "milli-engine"? It always bugs me when people name things with words that imply many magnitudes of order difference in size and use up all the obvious choices for things smaller yet than what is now called a microxxxx.
What is the point of sending probes all over the solar system? I, for one, would like to entertain the notion of actually going there and seeing it with my own eyes. I logically know that it is likely that this will not happen to me for a long time, if ever, but I can still _hope_ to go some day.
What was the effect of all those accounts sent back by Lewis and Clark and other early European-decent explorers in North America? The more people found out, the more they wanted to go there. Lots of people died trying to get there and trying to make a living, but they kept coming and built a society like none before it.
Seriously, I've always wondered what PETA and the like think about natural predators. Do they find it, for example, morally wrong to let wolves roam free knowing that all they eat is other animals they have killed? Wolves were extinct in some parts of the country; does that make it immoral to reintroduce them to areas they once roamed?
I don't see where killing a chicken in a factory is any less horifying to the chicken than being killed by wolf, fox, mink, etc.
The Chinese want to go for the same reason as the US--it shows the rest of the world what their country is capable of. Going to the moon might not seem to be such a big deal anymore to the average American, but you have to remember that the _only_ people to walk on the moon have been Americans.
To the rest of the world, this is just one more triumph of the United States that nobody else has caught up to after 35 YEARS! The second country to land on the moon would still look big in the eyes of the rest of the world, and more-so if they build a moon base (something not even the USA has done).
On a different note, I'm going back to school for aerospace engineering. When touring the department, I found that they are having record enrollment in both their graduate and undergraduate programs. Kinda make's one wonder how many of them (like me) are switching from the computer industry...
Slashdot Mirror
"We sent mission xyz to rondesvous with iron/nickel asteroid foo. We successfully used a solar oven to refine the material and produce x kg of steel alloy pqr."
I keep hearing about in-situ resouce utilization, but it's not going to happen if we just keep sending probes that take pictures and measurments and don't actually do anything. Science is important, but it is a lot easier to piggyback science on an engineering mission than it is to use science-only missions to pave the way for something useful. Science probes have their place, but how many probes do we need to tell us that there is water ice on the moon and Mars? If we did missions to take advantage of what we already know, it's not that big of a step to do the same thing in a different place (e.g. sending a mission to Titan after developing the technology on Mars and the moon would mostly require a bigger rocket and powerplant that doesn't rely on the sun).
Why not have NASA focus again on engineering (i.e. putting people in space is primarily an engineering task) that pushes the edge of what is possible (e.g. manned lunar/Mars/asteroid rondesvous, etc) and leave the earth science to other countries that have fewer ties between their poiticians and their science programs (how about somewhere that actually signed Kyoto?).
I worked at Standard Iron for a summer in high school...last I heard was that part of it was now a superfund site.
Where abouts was that? I used to call that part of the state home.
Most people who want restrictions in place are opposed to using _embrios_ or _fetuses_ as the source of the cells; getting stem cells from other sources is OK with most people.
If scientists can change the way they do experiments on animals because of groups like PETA, why can't they just choose a less controversial source of stem cells?
Note the problems with embrionic cells vs adult cells here
Reminds me of the show, "Jackass". Why does anyone watch that? (if you don't see American TV, the show is essentially a series of home-movies of someone apparently striving to do everything their mother said to avoid).
Who would _you_ elect as village idiot of the global economy?
It would also be a great place for a spa or medical recouperation clinic. Lighter g would certainly place less stress on stressed-out and healing bodies and the view of the stars and moonscape is absolutely amazing.
If you can get rich people to the moon to take part in these kinds of activities at a price they are willing to pay (say, sever hundred grand/trip)or to produce entertainment for the masses, the masses won't be far behind. After all, 5-star exclusive resorts aren't just populated be rich people; they need support staff to cater to their every whim too.
Think about it.
I bet that inter-continental trips will be shortly behind the X-prize (i.e. 5-10 years) for business execs that don't want to ride in a plane for 36 hours and want to write off a thrill ride with a zero-g lay-over as a business expense. Heck, some of CEOs with large saleries might actually show "good business sense" by cutting a day or two of traveling out of a 3-5 day business trip (they make $300,000/per day at $100 million/year saleries).
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a VERY good thing. Just think of the BILLIONS of dollars in research funds shelled out to corporations that never let the results see the light of day (outside their own firm). This could be HUGE in the private/amature space development efforts.
I just wonder whether it applies to all the funds that have already been spent and whether companies will be able to negotiate exemptions into their development contracts with the government.
Seriously though, MS has probably spent more on market research for regular Joe user than any other big name technology company. Several others had good ideas, but I don't think many come close to funding the amount of pure research in user interfaces.
Of cource, there are rumors that they fund all that research for the same reason that the US pays former Soviet scientists--busy work to keep them from working for their enemies.
On the other hand, the atmosphere is thinner would lead to less loss due to defraction. Plus, it may be easier to build solar concentrators in the reduced gravity (maybe even inflatable structures?).
What was the effect of all those accounts sent back by Lewis and Clark and other early European-decent explorers in North America? The more people found out, the more they wanted to go there. Lots of people died trying to get there and trying to make a living, but they kept coming and built a society like none before it.
I don't see where killing a chicken in a factory is any less horifying to the chicken than being killed by wolf, fox, mink, etc.
To the rest of the world, this is just one more triumph of the United States that nobody else has caught up to after 35 YEARS! The second country to land on the moon would still look big in the eyes of the rest of the world, and more-so if they build a moon base (something not even the USA has done).
On a different note, I'm going back to school for aerospace engineering. When touring the department, I found that they are having record enrollment in both their graduate and undergraduate programs. Kinda make's one wonder how many of them (like me) are switching from the computer industry...
Whoops. Good catch.