Interesting. A lot of the more socialist types here in the US love Sweden's economic model. Good to hear that there's somebody else who doesn't think it's perfect. : )
You say it can't be done. I say it can. I hope private industry will be able to succeed where NASA has failed. That's really the crux of it, isn't it?
Re:Interesting article
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 1
Uh, your hypothesis is broken, because it DID happen to me. By that, I mean they did it, I asked them about it, and they told me that if I didn't like it I could cancel my membership.
So I did.
Immediately prior to my cancellation, I had over 40 movies on "long wait" or whatever their verbiage was. They seemed to have pretty good depth on the New Hotness of movies, but they were not serving the Long Tail sufficiently well to keep getting my money.
We've got compact, safe nuclear reactors. We put them in submarines.
Every successful landing increases the chance for the next successful landing. Ideally, I'd like to see NASA put an X-Prize style bounty on the milestone achievements, and let the aerospace community do what they do best (when unfettered by Congress): Solve hard problems in astonishingly short times with very reasonable budgets.
I have one goal: Manned space exploration. There are two sides: People who want to do it, and people who will put up with it when it's politically expedient. The second set is useless to the goal.
Private companies do not have the same constraints. They can take more risks, and they don't answer to Congress. Why is this idea anathema to you?
The $20b price tag is over the course of ten years. Gosh: Not too far from the 10% figure, huh? Hell, screw it: Say 20% of NASA's budget. Whatever. It doesn't break the bank.
Zubrin uses Shuttle parts because they are in the inventory. There are parts of the Shuttle program that are great: the main engines are bad ass. The remanufacturing process to get the orbiter back on the launch pad is not bad ass. I don't hate NASA as such: I hate its obstructionism. If you want to pin that on Congress, I'm not going to argue with you. NASA has the same problem as defense procurement: The only congress apes that like you are the ones that have your plants in their districts. Horrible way to build hardware.
Unless you have specific safety nits to pick with Mars Direct, I'm going to sweep that under the rug of "manageable risks". I would put my life on the line for that program tomorrow. I bet I can find four other people who agree with me. Those are the only safety factors at issue.
The Ares booster would be a very not expensive proposition. It's basically off-the-shelf parts, and it ignores the stupid orbiter. It's incrementally more powerful than Saturn V, but definitely in the same size class. The hardware is already ready already. Assembling it would not be cost prohibitive.
NASA is not separate from Congress. NASA does not have autonomy. So, whether directed at Congress or NASA, my issue is that the US Government is impeding manned space exploration by insisting on Shuttle and ISS.
The name on the business cards of the flacks who make that decision is not relevant.
You really need to check out the stuff that Mars Society is talking about. Robert Zubrin's ideas for modular base development (the spacecraft IS the base) and indigenously-produced propulsion are the keys to the solar system, in my opinion.
ISS might have been useful, had it ever been fully staffed. But, with Congress killing the ACRV every chance they get, they have cut the throat of the program. It is now useless, and will remain so until it gets a crew large enough to do science.
Note that I don't think that that science will be particularly valuable to manned space exploration, but if that's what you want ISS to do, you can't do it with three people in that tin can.
NASA doing basic research is a great role. NASA doing big-ticket exploration stuff would be an OK role. NASA impeding big ticket exploration stuff by constantly picking the least efficient mission profiles for manned space exploration is a really bad role.
You know as well as I do which model they're in today.
Re: Mars: There are plans out there that would, in ten years, place and maintain a high-capability Mars base for 10% of NASA's current annual budget. NASA doesn't like this plan because it doesn't require us to un-fuck ISS to do it.
I don't really want to get into a discussion with why we need to go to Mars. If you don't see the importance, I'm not going to try to change your mind.
ISS is one thing: An experiment to see how slowly we can get a space station to deteriorate with a uselessly small crew. The Russians have already done this experiment. Doing it again is silly.
NASA's basic research stuff is all well and good, but they don't get at the mission: Explore space. With humans. Yes, that is MY vision, and MY goal, and I certainly am projecting that on NASA.
Ion drives are great and all, but conventional rockets work REALLY well. Why not use the technology we have to its fullest? Why wait for steam power to cross the Atlantic when sails will work? (That's a historical metaphor. I know that people have in fact crossed the Atlantic. I hear there are even trade outposts on the other side of the Pacific ocean.)
You say that being congressionally mandated is an excuse. I say it is the cause of NASA's lack of focus. That's why I am excited about private industry getting a crack at the bat.
We've already learned enough to put a permanent base on Mars. I'd argue that we knew enough ten years ago to do so. The Moon is a waste of time.
Sure. NASA is not in the market for anything that's not Shuttle or ISS. NASA is moribund. NASA hasn't done anything to advance space exploration in 20 years.
NASA is not the future. Rutan (and people like him) are the future.
I am like Rutan. (Minus the raw genius and 30 years of experience)
Better? Now go get yourself a sense of humor and we can continue the discussion.
OK, maybe you can verify something for me. My French teacher was a Crazylady (tm), so she might be wrong, but she told us that 2CV first stood for "Deux Chevaux", or two horsepower. True? False?
Slashdot Mirror
Screw that. If Microsoft ever does include virus scanning, expect the update system to be 0wn3d within days and turn into another disease vector.
Asking MS to build secure software is like asking inmates to design secure prisons. There is simply no incentive to do so.
Interesting. A lot of the more socialist types here in the US love Sweden's economic model. Good to hear that there's somebody else who doesn't think it's perfect. : )
Sounds like the good solution then is to have a robust, heterogenous market where no company is powerful enough to do this.
I wonder if the people who did the study understand the concept of "net cost" as well as you do.
I'll bet you a shiny nickel they do.
Why would I partition my hard drive if OSX does absolutely everything I could want it to?
I guess I must just be a "basic user". I wish I could be more like you, O Elite One.
Afraid to partition a hard drive? No. Think it's a pretty silly thing to have to do? Ayup.
I'm trying to remember the last time I had to install a "driver" on my Powerbook. I suppose there might be one somewhere, but I've never used one.
You like single-source drivers and you're going with Microsoft? You're weowd.
It's not REALLY practicing law. It's just being a traffic cop warning the user whether or not the EULA complies with certain pre-set conditions.
Unless Bayesian filters are against the law, this isn't either.
You say it can't be done. I say it can. I hope private industry will be able to succeed where NASA has failed. That's really the crux of it, isn't it?
Uh, your hypothesis is broken, because it DID happen to me. By that, I mean they did it, I asked them about it, and they told me that if I didn't like it I could cancel my membership.
So I did.
Immediately prior to my cancellation, I had over 40 movies on "long wait" or whatever their verbiage was. They seemed to have pretty good depth on the New Hotness of movies, but they were not serving the Long Tail sufficiently well to keep getting my money.
We've got compact, safe nuclear reactors. We put them in submarines.
Every successful landing increases the chance for the next successful landing. Ideally, I'd like to see NASA put an X-Prize style bounty on the milestone achievements, and let the aerospace community do what they do best (when unfettered by Congress): Solve hard problems in astonishingly short times with very reasonable budgets.
I have one goal: Manned space exploration. There are two sides: People who want to do it, and people who will put up with it when it's politically expedient. The second set is useless to the goal.
Private companies do not have the same constraints. They can take more risks, and they don't answer to Congress. Why is this idea anathema to you?
The $20b price tag is over the course of ten years. Gosh: Not too far from the 10% figure, huh? Hell, screw it: Say 20% of NASA's budget. Whatever. It doesn't break the bank.
Zubrin uses Shuttle parts because they are in the inventory. There are parts of the Shuttle program that are great: the main engines are bad ass. The remanufacturing process to get the orbiter back on the launch pad is not bad ass. I don't hate NASA as such: I hate its obstructionism. If you want to pin that on Congress, I'm not going to argue with you. NASA has the same problem as defense procurement: The only congress apes that like you are the ones that have your plants in their districts. Horrible way to build hardware.
Unless you have specific safety nits to pick with Mars Direct, I'm going to sweep that under the rug of "manageable risks". I would put my life on the line for that program tomorrow. I bet I can find four other people who agree with me. Those are the only safety factors at issue.
The Ares booster would be a very not expensive proposition. It's basically off-the-shelf parts, and it ignores the stupid orbiter. It's incrementally more powerful than Saturn V, but definitely in the same size class. The hardware is already ready already. Assembling it would not be cost prohibitive.
NASA is not separate from Congress. NASA does not have autonomy. So, whether directed at Congress or NASA, my issue is that the US Government is impeding manned space exploration by insisting on Shuttle and ISS.
The name on the business cards of the flacks who make that decision is not relevant.
You really need to check out the stuff that Mars Society is talking about. Robert Zubrin's ideas for modular base development (the spacecraft IS the base) and indigenously-produced propulsion are the keys to the solar system, in my opinion.
ISS might have been useful, had it ever been fully staffed. But, with Congress killing the ACRV every chance they get, they have cut the throat of the program. It is now useless, and will remain so until it gets a crew large enough to do science.
Note that I don't think that that science will be particularly valuable to manned space exploration, but if that's what you want ISS to do, you can't do it with three people in that tin can.
NASA doing basic research is a great role. NASA doing big-ticket exploration stuff would be an OK role. NASA impeding big ticket exploration stuff by constantly picking the least efficient mission profiles for manned space exploration is a really bad role.
You know as well as I do which model they're in today.
Re: Mars: There are plans out there that would, in ten years, place and maintain a high-capability Mars base for 10% of NASA's current annual budget. NASA doesn't like this plan because it doesn't require us to un-fuck ISS to do it.
I don't really want to get into a discussion with why we need to go to Mars. If you don't see the importance, I'm not going to try to change your mind.
ISS is one thing: An experiment to see how slowly we can get a space station to deteriorate with a uselessly small crew. The Russians have already done this experiment. Doing it again is silly.
NASA's basic research stuff is all well and good, but they don't get at the mission: Explore space. With humans. Yes, that is MY vision, and MY goal, and I certainly am projecting that on NASA.
Ion drives are great and all, but conventional rockets work REALLY well. Why not use the technology we have to its fullest? Why wait for steam power to cross the Atlantic when sails will work? (That's a historical metaphor. I know that people have in fact crossed the Atlantic. I hear there are even trade outposts on the other side of the Pacific ocean.)
You say that being congressionally mandated is an excuse. I say it is the cause of NASA's lack of focus. That's why I am excited about private industry getting a crack at the bat.
We've already learned enough to put a permanent base on Mars. I'd argue that we knew enough ten years ago to do so. The Moon is a waste of time.
Sure. NASA is not in the market for anything that's not Shuttle or ISS. NASA is moribund. NASA hasn't done anything to advance space exploration in 20 years.
NASA is not the future. Rutan (and people like him) are the future.
I am like Rutan. (Minus the raw genius and 30 years of experience)
Better? Now go get yourself a sense of humor and we can continue the discussion.
More like Nerdular Nerdence.
Rutan has spent more time thinking about aerospace problems than you have spent masturbating. I guarantee he has a plan to evolve his capabilities.
I understand French pretty well, but I'll never understand the French people.
: )
Those generalizations are broad enough to be meaningless. Might as well say there are only two colors of paint: dark and light.
Sure happened to me, which is why they don't get my money anymore.
That joke killed me every time it happened. Damn, that was a good movie.
Who cares if it's a "great shift"? If I can get the stuff that I want, why do I care about the habits of others?
I think you're missing the point. This is not about "great shifts". It's about access to media I'd otherwise not have access to.
I've never heard of any of those, so they must not be any good.
Oh wait...
Fiscal horsepower? So it's an accounting scheme? Wow. French people are complicated.
OK, maybe you can verify something for me. My French teacher was a Crazylady (tm), so she might be wrong, but she told us that 2CV first stood for "Deux Chevaux", or two horsepower. True? False?