Excuse me? Would you care to provide a historical counterpoint, or are you just casting aspersions on people who've actually read on the subject?
Germany and Japan had a profitable (for Germany) technology sharing pact that they didn't want to lose. Germany thought Japan could tie up Russia's Eastern front. It was in Hitler's interest to keep his treaty with Japan.
I'm an idealist. I think law enforcement should hew to the ideals of this country's social contract with me. You think they should put on the jackboots and do whatever they want. We disagree.
Yes, VentureStar was VTHL, which is way way way better for orbital vehicles than vertical landings for the reasons I've already explained.
I haven't read your Bono and Truax cites, but I will require a great deal of convincing to tell me that a parachute or gliding approach are disadvantageous wrt Flash Gordon.
You still haven't addressed my basic concern: Why carry fuel to do what you can get air to do with no weight penalty?
Sure, you can have tanker ships. Michael Flynn supposed the same thing for his dumb Flash Gordon ballistic transports.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
I'm not arguing that we need to have another Revolutionary War. I am arguing that working within the system is not always the way to demand change for the better.
The reason Roosevelt drew the foul in the Pacific was so that he could declare war on Japan, which (by virtue of the alliance between Japan and Germany) would obligate Germany to declare war on the US.
Whatever. I'm sure he knew the difference between an anecdote and data. If the other people in the audience confused the two, they didn't have any business being at Harvard.
Scientists have kids too. Maybe he likes talking about his daughter. The example WAS germane. I really don't know why you've got your undies in a twist.
Particularly since neither of us know what he said, or what the context was.
All the more reason to aggressively move people to broadband.
Which they haven't done.
I love my TiVo (which is connected to my home LAN via wireless, although there was some hoop-jumping since I don't have a land line at all), but the moves the company's been making are...puzzling.
OK, first, you seem to think I'm advocating space ships with wings. Not so. I think Shuttle is a stupid idea, driven by military design requirements that had nothing to do with cheap access to orbit.
VentureStar had possibilities.
A winged ship has 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO? I find that extremely hard to believe. Considering the state of modern composite fabrication, I think it's ridiculous.
Now, if you presuppose that you can refuel in space, the math changes radically. (Of course, we no longer have a single-stage vehicle, but that's a semantic point) Although now we have to have a massive infrastructure on orbit. You know how much trouble we've had with ISS? Multiply by ten.
" Because he's addressing a scientific forum and bringing up very nonscientific data"
How do you know the data was nonscientific? He referenced allegedly scientific studies, and then mentioned an anecdote that everybody in the audience SHOULD have recognized as an anecdote.
Again, we're talking in circles, because we don't know what was said.
"One thing though about an having a rocket landing, as opposed to a plane landing is that you can bring down a heavier load. I am not worrying about fuel requirements in this case, its just that you have a limit to what a run way and tires can take. The space shtutle tire are replaced after every mission and cost 4K each. That is a high expense."
4K each? You think that's a significant cost? Boy, you really really don't know a lot about how spaceships work.
The State of the Art design for going to the Moon is the Saturn V. Not because it's magical, but because a design like that is dictated by the physical realities of space travel. Whether you have a winged reentry vehicle, or a capsule, is largely irrelevant to the launch system.
It's a question of mass fraction. For every pound of stuff you want to get to the Moon and back, you need LOTS of pounds of fuel. I'll let you do the math on your own time. Consider the size of the Apollo capsule versus the size of the launch system. Now, with modern technology and a similarly sized launch vehicle, I would be an engineering jedi badass if I could get a return mass twice the size of the Apollo capsule.
If you're worried about ground pressure, use more wheels or build a stronger runway. Either of those options is trivial in dollar cost relative to building a rocket big enough to carry its landing fuel with it.
"sempron 2800+, 256mb, floppy drive, dvd drive, 40gb hd, gf4mx, nic, kb, mouse, 6 usb slots, on board sound...."
So you get a slightly faster processor, that also works as a space heater. Woo. My trousers are totally moist. Not.
"the extra memory for the hp would be a lot cheaper"
WTF? DDR 2700. It comes free in boxes of Cheerios. What are you talking about?
Wait a tick. Are you seriously wanting people to buy an Hewlett Packard PC? Now I KNOW you're high.
Repeat after me. Most users never upgrade their computers. They want to take it out of the box and have it work. If you have a different agenda, buy a different computer.
But you won't get iMovie, which kicks ass. My dad asked me about how to upgrade his PC to do video editing. I told him to go to the Apple store and give them $500. Upgrade complete.
Right, because most people are really interested in perusing AnandTech to find quiet parts that won't melt your processor.
Don't blame the people who buy Mac minis for having a different set of criteria for what makes a good computer than you do.
Apple has designed a small, quiet, CHEAP computer, and you're whining that it's not small quiet and cheap enough. I really would like to see you do better.
Oh yeah, and don't forget to include a decent consumer-level video editing app in the price. (oooh, that means no Linux. Damn. There goes your budget.)
Do you really think wings weigh more than your Flash Gordon rocket landing fuel?
DC-X was a technology demonstrator. It was not an efficient way of moving payloads to orbit. VentureStar had some serious possibilities, but since it's not Shuttle or ISS, NASA's not interested.
Do the math. Carrying your landing-on-earth fuel to the Moon means that you have to lift it out of Earth's gravity well, land it on the moon, lift it off the moon, and slow it down for landing. Guess what all those things take? LOTS of fuel.
If you're really interested, I'll give you the equations and outline some simplifying assumptions you can make. You can feed the numbers into a simple spreadsheet that you can design (I already have my degree: You do the homework.) You'll immediately understand why staged rocketry is the best solution for heavy-lift launches.
A SSTO orbital vehicle is a very different thing from an SSTO to Moon to Earth vehicle. The second one will be at least an order of magnitude bigger.
"I was trying to provoke discussion, and I certainly believe that there's been some move in the research away from believing that all these things are shaped only by socialization."
How is this (in your words) "jumping the gun"? He says there's research that raises these questions. He says that more research is a good idea. He shared a personal (that is, non-scientific) anecdote that made him wonder about the question.
What's the problem here? Should he just shut up and accept that, although our bodies are very different, mens' and womens' think-meat are just the same?
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me? Would you care to provide a historical counterpoint, or are you just casting aspersions on people who've actually read on the subject?
Germany and Japan had a profitable (for Germany) technology sharing pact that they didn't want to lose. Germany thought Japan could tie up Russia's Eastern front. It was in Hitler's interest to keep his treaty with Japan.
I'm an idealist. I think law enforcement should hew to the ideals of this country's social contract with me. You think they should put on the jackboots and do whatever they want. We disagree.
Illegal!=wrong.
I'd like to read that requirement. I don't think it exists.
Hmmm...so the only PC I can buy that's close in size to the Mac mini is slower, larger, and more expensive.
Yeah, that mini is a crappy computer indeed.
not.
Yes, VentureStar was VTHL, which is way way way better for orbital vehicles than vertical landings for the reasons I've already explained.
I haven't read your Bono and Truax cites, but I will require a great deal of convincing to tell me that a parachute or gliding approach are disadvantageous wrt Flash Gordon.
You still haven't addressed my basic concern: Why carry fuel to do what you can get air to do with no weight penalty?
Sure, you can have tanker ships. Michael Flynn supposed the same thing for his dumb Flash Gordon ballistic transports.
Why is burning fuel better than using air?
Let's play NAME THAT DOCUMENT.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
I'm not arguing that we need to have another Revolutionary War. I am arguing that working within the system is not always the way to demand change for the better.
The reason Roosevelt drew the foul in the Pacific was so that he could declare war on Japan, which (by virtue of the alliance between Japan and Germany) would obligate Germany to declare war on the US.
Let's burn that bridge when we come to it. It's a pretty silly thing to worry about...
Right, because terrorists are too dumb to realize this and will be sure to trip all those flags you've listed.
Right.
(Quick check -- do you think Americans today have more or less civil rights than they did, say, 20 years ago?)
Depends on what color you are.
True for a "world" of finite size. Which is ample reason to move off this rock.
You shouldn't. So die.
A human being that has an ego?
Say it ain't so.
Serious question: How much time per month do you have to spend checking it for errors, and otherwise jacking with it?
Whatever. I'm sure he knew the difference between an anecdote and data. If the other people in the audience confused the two, they didn't have any business being at Harvard.
Scientists have kids too. Maybe he likes talking about his daughter. The example WAS germane. I really don't know why you've got your undies in a twist.
Particularly since neither of us know what he said, or what the context was.
All the more reason to aggressively move people to broadband.
Which they haven't done.
I love my TiVo (which is connected to my home LAN via wireless, although there was some hoop-jumping since I don't have a land line at all), but the moves the company's been making are...puzzling.
OK, first, you seem to think I'm advocating space ships with wings. Not so. I think Shuttle is a stupid idea, driven by military design requirements that had nothing to do with cheap access to orbit.
VentureStar had possibilities.
A winged ship has 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO? I find that extremely hard to believe. Considering the state of modern composite fabrication, I think it's ridiculous.
Now, if you presuppose that you can refuel in space, the math changes radically. (Of course, we no longer have a single-stage vehicle, but that's a semantic point) Although now we have to have a massive infrastructure on orbit. You know how much trouble we've had with ISS? Multiply by ten.
" Because he's addressing a scientific forum and bringing up very nonscientific data"
How do you know the data was nonscientific? He referenced allegedly scientific studies, and then mentioned an anecdote that everybody in the audience SHOULD have recognized as an anecdote.
Again, we're talking in circles, because we don't know what was said.
"Why you'd want to do such a thing is beyond me,"
BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED TO.
"One thing though about an having a rocket landing, as opposed to a plane landing is that you can bring down a heavier load. I am not worrying about fuel requirements in this case, its just that you have a limit to what a run way and tires can take. The space shtutle tire are replaced after every mission and cost 4K each. That is a high expense."
4K each? You think that's a significant cost? Boy, you really really don't know a lot about how spaceships work.
The State of the Art design for going to the Moon is the Saturn V. Not because it's magical, but because a design like that is dictated by the physical realities of space travel. Whether you have a winged reentry vehicle, or a capsule, is largely irrelevant to the launch system.
It's a question of mass fraction. For every pound of stuff you want to get to the Moon and back, you need LOTS of pounds of fuel. I'll let you do the math on your own time. Consider the size of the Apollo capsule versus the size of the launch system. Now, with modern technology and a similarly sized launch vehicle, I would be an engineering jedi badass if I could get a return mass twice the size of the Apollo capsule.
If you're worried about ground pressure, use more wheels or build a stronger runway. Either of those options is trivial in dollar cost relative to building a rocket big enough to carry its landing fuel with it.
"sempron 2800+, 256mb, floppy drive, dvd drive, 40gb hd, gf4mx, nic, kb, mouse, 6 usb slots, on board sound...."
So you get a slightly faster processor, that also works as a space heater. Woo. My trousers are totally moist. Not.
"the extra memory for the hp would be a lot cheaper"
WTF? DDR 2700. It comes free in boxes of Cheerios. What are you talking about?
Wait a tick. Are you seriously wanting people to buy an Hewlett Packard PC? Now I KNOW you're high.
Repeat after me. Most users never upgrade their computers. They want to take it out of the box and have it work. If you have a different agenda, buy a different computer.
But you won't get iMovie, which kicks ass. My dad asked me about how to upgrade his PC to do video editing. I told him to go to the Apple store and give them $500. Upgrade complete.
Right, because most people are really interested in perusing AnandTech to find quiet parts that won't melt your processor.
Don't blame the people who buy Mac minis for having a different set of criteria for what makes a good computer than you do.
Apple has designed a small, quiet, CHEAP computer, and you're whining that it's not small quiet and cheap enough. I really would like to see you do better.
Oh yeah, and don't forget to include a decent consumer-level video editing app in the price. (oooh, that means no Linux. Damn. There goes your budget.)
Unless, like me, he's already got the turbos in another car.
Oh, wait, I guess if I don't conform to your stereotype, I must not be a geek.
My bad.
A conclusion that has no interest whatsoever when choosing between two surgeons.
None.
Zero.
Your example has not anything to do with the behavior of two individual meaty humans.
Do you really think wings weigh more than your Flash Gordon rocket landing fuel?
DC-X was a technology demonstrator. It was not an efficient way of moving payloads to orbit. VentureStar had some serious possibilities, but since it's not Shuttle or ISS, NASA's not interested.
Do the math. Carrying your landing-on-earth fuel to the Moon means that you have to lift it out of Earth's gravity well, land it on the moon, lift it off the moon, and slow it down for landing. Guess what all those things take? LOTS of fuel.
If you're really interested, I'll give you the equations and outline some simplifying assumptions you can make. You can feed the numbers into a simple spreadsheet that you can design (I already have my degree: You do the homework.) You'll immediately understand why staged rocketry is the best solution for heavy-lift launches.
A SSTO orbital vehicle is a very different thing from an SSTO to Moon to Earth vehicle. The second one will be at least an order of magnitude bigger.
"I was trying to provoke discussion, and
I certainly believe that there's been some move in the
research away from believing that all these things are
shaped only by socialization."
How is this (in your words) "jumping the gun"? He says there's research that raises these questions. He says that more research is a good idea. He shared a personal (that is, non-scientific) anecdote that made him wonder about the question.
What's the problem here? Should he just shut up and accept that, although our bodies are very different, mens' and womens' think-meat are just the same?