Adding intelligence to small items has benefits - in that it enables you to make decisions close to the center of activity.
Adding intelligence in a centrallised location has benefits - in that it enables you to lower the cost per flop (support, redundancy etc).
To use an analogy, it's the difference between the motor control centers of the brain, and the nerve bundles running throughout your body. The brain has the processing power necessary to make the best decisions, but many common reactions are pushed to the nerve centers to allow for faster responses to critical stimuli.
As such, all these embedded microprocessors can be thought of as the network extending its control rather than decentralizing. Sure, my cell phone could mesh with other phones in an attempt to be a major cell router, but the experiment would be likely to create nothing but a mess of unreliable, disconnected networks. To say nothing for attempts to receive voice mail.
Then there are the smart drill bits. Smart enough to "feel" the world around it (like our nerves do), but lacking the processing power and communications relays to be a major web server. So distributing the data from the bit to millions of interested users or systems would likely result in a shutdown of the drill's computational abilities. Yet paired with a dedicated webserver (drill bit: I'll tell you; web server: I'll feed back that information the rest of systens/world) the two would have more than enough power to do exactly that.
Just as you can survive by loosing a bit of communications to outer nerves, so can computers survive by exposing embedded processing to dangerous areas. But you brain is a sensitive thing and is thus protected by a very strong skull cap. Just as the key networking resources are protected in high-security, underground bunkers.
Well the majority of speech protected by the 1st amendment is exactly that, freedom from repercussion pursued by the government.
Depends. If statements are found to be true and factual, then the plantiff usually has no case, regardless of the damages. (e.g. If I said Company FizzBang was dumping toxic waste, their libel suit would fail if it was proven that they were indeed dumping toxic waste.) Also, attempts to make amends for false statements can often prevent a case from going forward.
If the defendant in this case had said the same things about the President she would have been protected*.
Comments made about public figures have certain special protections that comments made about private individuals don't have. The courts have held that individuals in the public eye open themselves up to a lot more criticism, and thus that criticism should be protected. This particular case involved a private individual, and thus was not protected in the same fashion as statements about the President would be.
If you're still unclear on this, then I recommend reading Wikipedia's explanation of Libel and the laws surrounding it. The article does a fairly good job of explaining the factors under which libel is decided:
Hmm.. if I understand what you are saying, even China has free speech.
Obviously, you don't. Otherwise you'd realize that you can't even make a free statement to get sued over. Statements that are critical of the government, or the government doesn't otherwise like are not allowed to be made in the first place. No blogs, no newspapers, no open forums, not even a public speech. If you managed to find a way around the restrictions, then the government would try to erase the incident altogether. THAT is a lack of Freedom of Speech.
The statements that this woman made are presumably filed on public record with the courthouse, and probably haven't been deleted from the original source. The court is not making the statements go away, it is merely stating that the defendent has to make up for the damage the defendent caused the plantiff.
This being Slashdot and all, I'll probably get modded down for this. C'est la vie. Someone obviously needs to explain this.
In a chilling slap at free speech, the jury decided that not only was this illegal, but that it was worth over $11 million.
Freedom of Speech is the right to speak freely. It is NOT the right to speak without repercussion. Every time you make a public statement, you are responsible for the content of that statement as well as the veracity of that content. The typical example of this is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If there's no fire, then you can expect that your actions will have serious conseqences.
TFA is light on the actual details of this case. So it's difficult to judge who was really "right" and who was really "wrong". (Especially since the defendent wasn't able to defend herself.) However, you need to pay attention to the fact that the defendent DID find an open forum for her speech. She posted her opinions (apparently to the point of persecuting the plantiff) and was thus able to exercise her right to free speech. The fact that a court decided that this speech was libelous does nothing to impinge on those statements being fully accessable in a public forum.
When we talk about the lack of Free Speech, we mean that the statements can't be made in the first place. As in, the controlling entity (usually the government) can prevent dissenting opinions from being published in newspapers, books, or webpages. China even goes as far as to deny the right to blog, and filters out all incoming media for any speech they might find distateful.
Contrast that with a court case seeking to recover damages for statements made in public forums and accessible to millions. Presumably, those statements are still available. There is no "chill" here people. Move on.
Someone has bid on the $1,000 one now, although the bidder might be a deadbeat (based on his feedback). There's also this preorder that sold for a $1599 Buy It Now.
It seems that a fool and his money are soon parted.:)
A blockbuster game is something like GTA. You just have to create something similar, shoot people, slap women and all that will guaranty you tons of sells.
Hmmm... perhaps I should have used the term "Timeless Classic" rather than "blockbuster".:)
Space Invaders on an Atari 2600? Played with Mind Control?!? Very funny, guys.
I suppose the researchers thought it would be hi-friggin'-larious to make the Atari Mindlink a reality. That way they really COULD play games with their mind! (Insert *snickers* and *gaffaws* here.) Considering that the original was a sham (you were really moving your brow to control the game), I'm not sure they really want to be associated with such "technology".
On the other hand, I suppose they deserve some serious Geek Cred for making such an obscure reference with this experiment. Most people wouldn't "get it" anyway, and would only see the neat research going on.:P
Well, the article certainly has a lot of hemming and hawing over "Game Design". Just about every book ever published on the subject is included. Unfortunately, this is just a fluff piece. Reading these books won't suddenly force you to understand how to design games, they will merely provide useful tips that may or may not prove to be helpful. (Some of the tips may even be bad ideas!)
Let me ask you, the Slashdot readers. Can anyone explain to you how to be the next DaVinci or Picasso? Can anyone tell you how to write the next great Symphony? Can anyone tell you how to make the next blockbuster movie?
The answer in all cases should be an emphatic "No". These are the areas of artistry that reflect their creators' desire to express themselves. You can't tell someone how to do these things, you can only offer suggestions on how to polish and commercialize them.
It's the same with video games. A *good* video game reflects the complexity and intensity of its author. It expresses things in an interactive media that can't be expressed in other ways. People wonder why Mario was such a good side scroller while something like The Rocketeer was considered bland. What made Half-Life so special when there was a market full of First Person Shooters? Why Wing Commander succeeded where so many other shooters failed.
If you analyse these questions, the answer becomes obvious. The amatuer game designer merely plays with game mechanics with no rhyme or reason behind his changes. He may combine things that are popular, or try to cram in every cool thing he's ever seen done in a game. (With apologies to the author, 2Hard4U is an excellent example of this.) The end result, however, feels like game mechanics squished together rather than a cohesive system.
The master game designer has a vision in his mind of what a game should be. He only adds mechanics as required by his vision. He then tweaks and polishes and tweaks again until every last mechanic finds a balance with all the other game mechanics. The final work represents his vision for what a game should be, rather than merely a hope that combining concepts will be fun.
I saw an interesting interview with Shigeru Miyamoto at one point. Apparently, Mr. Miyamoto had created games like Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros., and Zelda based on imaginings he had while walking through the nearby woods. He imagined things like trap doors in the sky, or meeting interesting creatures at the lake. He formed these concepts into little stories which he then sought to tell using the limited canvas of the electronic games platform. The result was all the little intracasies that made these games great. Mario was able to become a giant. He could climb through the sky on a beanstalk. He could smash bricks. Link grew into a man after starting from nothing. He met interesting creatures, and had to defend against enemies. So on and so forth.
So if you want to be a game designer, you have to learn that it's about more than just the technology. You have to have a vision for what your game should be about. Once you have that vision, following it through to its logical conclusion is the only way to make a great game.
I wouldn't be too critical. Eventually a point arrives at which the politicians demand something shown for their money. That's when you roll out the quick commercial solution, and pretend like it was a great NASA achievement.:)
As it is, the CEV and Ares I are probably a mistake
If you mean that the mission profile is a mistake, then I agree. Chucking a metric crapload of hardware just to bring back a few tons is exceedingly wasteful and unnecessary. However, the vehicles themselves are the right idea. Based on current tech, with the superbooster separate from the man-rated booster. It's exactly what NASA *should* have built a long time ago.
Especially since superbooters will be key in lifting large amounts of supplies in the future. With the Shuttle out of commission, there isn't much choice for lifting over 20 metric tonnes of cargo. Much less the 100+ tonnes that we should really be able to fly. If there's any place I think the plan could have been better executed, it's in requiring a new launch vehicle for the CEV. They could have taken an existing rocket off the (very large) shelf and man-rated it.
As for the Ba-330, I agree wholeheartedly. Since a space station is designed with extended life support, you could even make a spaceship out of it. Just hook it up with sufficient Ion Engine power (a detachable sled perhaps?), and you can take a leisurely cruise up to the moon. It might take a month or two either way, but you'll get there safely and in relative comfort.
Even now, Bigelow bought the core tech from NASA that they did in the 90's. I doubt that bigelow would be where they are today without all of this work (and I am quite certain that you are aware of that).
I agree wholeheartedly. Just as I'm sure you'll agree that this work never would have seen the light of day had Bigelow not purchased the rights.
NASA does a lot of cool stuff. Unfortunately, anything that gets farther along than a pipe-dream becomes fodder for politicking. If Bigelow has proved anything, I think it's that shunting it to the private sector (as in, the real private sector, not a Lockheed-Martin contract) is a great way to overcome the red-tape of government. Hopefully, this will boomerang back around and allow NASA to more quickly deploy space resources.:)
Actually that is wrong. The way our system is supposed to work is the President makes ZERO decisions,
The President makes ZERO decisions? You seriously need to check that. Wikipedia says it quite well, so I'll just quote them:
Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the workings of the federal government. The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval. As Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, the president may also call into federal service the state units of the National Guard.
Executive does not mean "do nothing". It means that President gets the power to control things that need immediate attention, and Congress gets to make the laws within which the President works. It's checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances. Bush has not done anything with this order that Presidents before him have not done.
I think you're missing the words new and proposed.
Not at all. I don't see why you'd want to sign a new treaty that says, "No, you can't build nuclear engines" when that is exactly what the space program needs. The existing treaties on nuclear test bans have made the issues with weapons proliferations nearly non-existant among the major super-powers, so for what purpose are new ones needed? Even if a new test ban treaty was necessary, all this says is that such a treaty would be unacceptable if it failed to provide an exception for space travel.
Somehow, I really, really doubt that that's what the passage is referring to. It specifically says "arms control agreements".
That's exactly what it's referring to. I didn't link to the 1963 Test Bad Treaty and the Orion Project for my health. The 1963 treaty killed nuclear propulsion still-born. Well, now we want to go to Mars all the sudden. If we look at our options for the necessary energy and propulsion, Nuclear is the only one that makes sense.
Keep in mind that this document is guidance on how to interpret these treaties when related to "peaceful purposes". (Such as new engines.) Placing tactical nukes in space (something a bit different than the nuke configuration the Orion used) would still be a violation of the Internation Law that the U.S. agreed to. Nothing in this document changes that.
Does it? The US is to "opppose new legal regimes" and proposed arms agreements "must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations" in space. Read in context, the document states that treaties like the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty shouldn't interfere with peaceful space technology.
Yet folks are latching onto little pieces like "legal regimes" and twisting them out of context. So far, the only answer to that twisting has been, "Bush means something other than what he's saying." Well that's fine and dandy, but what he's saying is still what he's saying.
Thank you for proving that you're peddling Star Wars while pretending to defend NASA. A very clear demonstration of my point.
Translation: I'm not paranoid, everyone IS out to get me!
Seriously, grow up. I tried to provide you with educational information, and you responded with an unhinged attack. *shrug* If you want to look unhinged, be my guest.
You're still ignoring that Bush has controlled that entire government for 6 years.
Yeah, that's kind of what the President of the United States of America does. The decisions get made between him and Congress, and it's the responsibility of the rest of the government to carry out the orders given to them. In this case, those orders are "peaceful expansion toward space, with an eye for defense as necessary."
I'm not talking aboug "reading between the lines". I'm talking about writing policy as a smokescreen for the real agenda, to put nukes in space.
So your opinion is that the classified section of the orders state, "ignore all that crap about peace. We want big-ass WEAPONS!"?
Michael Griffin was a Star Wars scientist, and now NASA is putting Star Wars tech in space.
You really should listen to yourself sometime. What you're saying, in effect, is that the only reason why Griffin has been so good for NASA is because he's carrying out Bush's conspiracy to secretly place weapons in space that you, I, Europe, China, and just about anyone else with a telescope won't be able to find? All so that Bush can become the Ruler Of The World!
Now that you mention it, I think I saw that in a movie.
Your "order" is nonsense. There is a chance to stop Bush and his Republican government next month on Election Day. If that fails, of course the courts can and will do nothing to stop him, especially as Bush gradually replaces them with his private judges. By the time "ammo" is all that's left, the country is destroyed, with armed gangs ruling the ruins.
Welp, I'll leave you to it Mr. Little. Meanwhile, millions of Americans will be happily picking up weapons and ammo (that apparently it's "too late" to get) to make certain of the outcome should Soap, Ballots, and Jury fail.
A lot of the Reagan/Bush Star Wars plans called for powering space lasers with nukes.
A bomb-pumped laser is a long way from a "nuke". The former is a method of generating a massive-energy pulse to power a defensive laser (intended to shoot down incoming warheads), and harmlessly destroys itself in the process. You might consider getting edumacated* about the ups, downs, and effectiveness of different space weaponry. It would greatly assist you in making your points more clearly.
There are a number of efficient, high ISP ion propulsion systems out there. Major shifts could be done over several years of gradual effort.
Yes, from that perspective it could be done. Unfortunately, we don't currently have any such boosters that are sufficient for the task. The ISS experiences a great deal of atmospheric drag, requiring that the attached boosters provide enough thrust to overcome that drag during the shift. Such boosters also need to provide enough power not to destablize the orbit during the movement of the station. Should the orbit become too elliptical, the station will crash into the lower atmosphere on its return orbit.
Today, the Space Shuttle gives the ISS an occasional boost using its high-powered engines. There's just enough fuel to keep the station in its current orbit, but not enough to really move it anywhere. So we'd need to develop a new method of boosting the station. The Ion Engines we have right now (to use the primary example of high Isp engines) would be difficult to make work. So you'd need to either develop a new array of Ions, a new Ion engine, or beta-test a new engine altogher. All those options are quite expensive, and of questionable cost/return.
is it possible to shift the ISS to a more useful/practical orbit?
Not really. The thing weighs in at about 2.5 times what the Saturn V could lift to orbit. Attempting a major shift in orbit would require so much fuel as to be impractical. It would probably be cheaper and easier to boost a new space station into a different orbit.
After all the gibberish you've spewed over the years, you've got nothing worth hearing to say about "Bush Hating".
I think your post speaks for itself. High on hyperbole, low on any relevant facts. Especially the part where you missed the "Rumsfield problem is a separate issue.":)
You have your opinion and I have mine. Unfortunately, your opinion is mostly based on your hatred for our president. It completely ignores that there might just be (maybe? just maybe?) other folks involved in these decisions. Other folks like Michael Griffin, perhaps the greatest thing to happen to NASA since Kennedy. Other folks like you and I, and the feedback we've been sending to our government for a long time. Other folks like Canada and the EU who have their own interests in our space program.
Now that there's actual progress being made toward space, suddenly we're afraid? Space is a big, and quite scary place. The technologies necessary to reach space are likewise big and scary. After reading this document, I cannot find the faults that other people so fervently insist are there. (Most folks seem to prefer taking text out of context to make it fit their view on the issue.) It spells out, quite completely I might add, the steps that our government should take for peaceful use of space. It also makes clear that we do not want to be the agressors. Like it or not, these instructions are the ones being given to NASA and the rest of our government.
You are saying that these agencies will read between the lines to help Bush become "the emperor" of the United States Empire. That will only happen if the entire government is as corrupt as you are accusing Bush of being. If that truly is the case, then may I suggest Soap, Ballots, Jury, and Ammo. In that order.
The context makes no particular difference in my mind - the intent has not changed.
Well, that's your opinion. Officially, Bush has spelled out a guidance document that instructs our government to act in a peaceful manner. You can argue that he means something else, but then you'll need to get the full cooperation of the rest of the government to follow that hidden meaning. That's a lot of backroom meetings!
It was only this year that Bigelow sent up its first test modules, while the ISS was conceived in the late 80s-early 90s, in the age of Mir.
You have exactly 22 days to pay for your stuff to fly before the "real thing" goes up. Get moving!;)
One of the great things about the private sector is that it tends to move a lot faster than the government. Which means that a space station gets completed in-line with the actual development time rather than in government politicking time. So NASA should be able to purchase Space Stations off the open market very soon now. Certainly, the development of this technology has progressed a lot faster than when NASA owned it.
I understand your point, but I'm merely pointing out that the ISS is not a useful space station. The most likely replacement will come in the form of Bigelow's Inflatible Space Stations. (Which are amazingly close to production.) Barring that, the U.S. should look to its next-generation super-boosters to put up cheaper and more useful space stations based on existing technology.
Slashdot Mirror
To use an analogy, it's the difference between the motor control centers of the brain, and the nerve bundles running throughout your body. The brain has the processing power necessary to make the best decisions, but many common reactions are pushed to the nerve centers to allow for faster responses to critical stimuli.
As such, all these embedded microprocessors can be thought of as the network extending its control rather than decentralizing. Sure, my cell phone could mesh with other phones in an attempt to be a major cell router, but the experiment would be likely to create nothing but a mess of unreliable, disconnected networks. To say nothing for attempts to receive voice mail.
Then there are the smart drill bits. Smart enough to "feel" the world around it (like our nerves do), but lacking the processing power and communications relays to be a major web server. So distributing the data from the bit to millions of interested users or systems would likely result in a shutdown of the drill's computational abilities. Yet paired with a dedicated webserver (drill bit: I'll tell you; web server: I'll feed back that information the rest of systens/world) the two would have more than enough power to do exactly that.
Just as you can survive by loosing a bit of communications to outer nerves, so can computers survive by exposing embedded processing to dangerous areas. But you brain is a sensitive thing and is thus protected by a very strong skull cap. Just as the key networking resources are protected in high-security, underground bunkers.
Depends. If statements are found to be true and factual, then the plantiff usually has no case, regardless of the damages. (e.g. If I said Company FizzBang was dumping toxic waste, their libel suit would fail if it was proven that they were indeed dumping toxic waste.) Also, attempts to make amends for false statements can often prevent a case from going forward.
Comments made about public figures have certain special protections that comments made about private individuals don't have. The courts have held that individuals in the public eye open themselves up to a lot more criticism, and thus that criticism should be protected. This particular case involved a private individual, and thus was not protected in the same fashion as statements about the President would be.
If you're still unclear on this, then I recommend reading Wikipedia's explanation of Libel and the laws surrounding it. The article does a fairly good job of explaining the factors under which libel is decided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
Obviously, you don't. Otherwise you'd realize that you can't even make a free statement to get sued over. Statements that are critical of the government, or the government doesn't otherwise like are not allowed to be made in the first place. No blogs, no newspapers, no open forums, not even a public speech. If you managed to find a way around the restrictions, then the government would try to erase the incident altogether. THAT is a lack of Freedom of Speech.
The statements that this woman made are presumably filed on public record with the courthouse, and probably haven't been deleted from the original source. The court is not making the statements go away, it is merely stating that the defendent has to make up for the damage the defendent caused the plantiff.
See the difference yet?
Freedom of Speech is the right to speak freely. It is NOT the right to speak without repercussion. Every time you make a public statement, you are responsible for the content of that statement as well as the veracity of that content. The typical example of this is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If there's no fire, then you can expect that your actions will have serious conseqences.
TFA is light on the actual details of this case. So it's difficult to judge who was really "right" and who was really "wrong". (Especially since the defendent wasn't able to defend herself.) However, you need to pay attention to the fact that the defendent DID find an open forum for her speech. She posted her opinions (apparently to the point of persecuting the plantiff) and was thus able to exercise her right to free speech. The fact that a court decided that this speech was libelous does nothing to impinge on those statements being fully accessable in a public forum.
When we talk about the lack of Free Speech, we mean that the statements can't be made in the first place. As in, the controlling entity (usually the government) can prevent dissenting opinions from being published in newspapers, books, or webpages. China even goes as far as to deny the right to blog, and filters out all incoming media for any speech they might find distateful.
Contrast that with a court case seeking to recover damages for statements made in public forums and accessible to millions. Presumably, those statements are still available. There is no "chill" here people. Move on.
Geez. Kind of harsh don't you think? I mean, the guy has only been here a month or two. No need to fire him over a simple mistake!
(I kid! I kid!)
Someone has bid on the $1,000 one now, although the bidder might be a deadbeat (based on his feedback). There's also this preorder that sold for a $1599 Buy It Now.
:)
It seems that a fool and his money are soon parted.
Hmmm... perhaps I should have used the term "Timeless Classic" rather than "blockbuster".
Space Invaders on an Atari 2600? Played with Mind Control?!? Very funny, guys.
:P
I suppose the researchers thought it would be hi-friggin'-larious to make the Atari Mindlink a reality. That way they really COULD play games with their mind! (Insert *snickers* and *gaffaws* here.) Considering that the original was a sham (you were really moving your brow to control the game), I'm not sure they really want to be associated with such "technology".
On the other hand, I suppose they deserve some serious Geek Cred for making such an obscure reference with this experiment. Most people wouldn't "get it" anyway, and would only see the neat research going on.
Well, the article certainly has a lot of hemming and hawing over "Game Design". Just about every book ever published on the subject is included. Unfortunately, this is just a fluff piece. Reading these books won't suddenly force you to understand how to design games, they will merely provide useful tips that may or may not prove to be helpful. (Some of the tips may even be bad ideas!)
Let me ask you, the Slashdot readers. Can anyone explain to you how to be the next DaVinci or Picasso? Can anyone tell you how to write the next great Symphony? Can anyone tell you how to make the next blockbuster movie?
The answer in all cases should be an emphatic "No". These are the areas of artistry that reflect their creators' desire to express themselves. You can't tell someone how to do these things, you can only offer suggestions on how to polish and commercialize them.
It's the same with video games. A *good* video game reflects the complexity and intensity of its author. It expresses things in an interactive media that can't be expressed in other ways. People wonder why Mario was such a good side scroller while something like The Rocketeer was considered bland. What made Half-Life so special when there was a market full of First Person Shooters? Why Wing Commander succeeded where so many other shooters failed.
If you analyse these questions, the answer becomes obvious. The amatuer game designer merely plays with game mechanics with no rhyme or reason behind his changes. He may combine things that are popular, or try to cram in every cool thing he's ever seen done in a game. (With apologies to the author, 2Hard4U is an excellent example of this.) The end result, however, feels like game mechanics squished together rather than a cohesive system.
The master game designer has a vision in his mind of what a game should be. He only adds mechanics as required by his vision. He then tweaks and polishes and tweaks again until every last mechanic finds a balance with all the other game mechanics. The final work represents his vision for what a game should be, rather than merely a hope that combining concepts will be fun.
I saw an interesting interview with Shigeru Miyamoto at one point. Apparently, Mr. Miyamoto had created games like Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros., and Zelda based on imaginings he had while walking through the nearby woods. He imagined things like trap doors in the sky, or meeting interesting creatures at the lake. He formed these concepts into little stories which he then sought to tell using the limited canvas of the electronic games platform. The result was all the little intracasies that made these games great. Mario was able to become a giant. He could climb through the sky on a beanstalk. He could smash bricks. Link grew into a man after starting from nothing. He met interesting creatures, and had to defend against enemies. So on and so forth.
So if you want to be a game designer, you have to learn that it's about more than just the technology. You have to have a vision for what your game should be about. Once you have that vision, following it through to its logical conclusion is the only way to make a great game.
I wouldn't be too critical. Eventually a point arrives at which the politicians demand something shown for their money. That's when you roll out the quick commercial solution, and pretend like it was a great NASA achievement.
If you mean that the mission profile is a mistake, then I agree. Chucking a metric crapload of hardware just to bring back a few tons is exceedingly wasteful and unnecessary. However, the vehicles themselves are the right idea. Based on current tech, with the superbooster separate from the man-rated booster. It's exactly what NASA *should* have built a long time ago.
Especially since superbooters will be key in lifting large amounts of supplies in the future. With the Shuttle out of commission, there isn't much choice for lifting over 20 metric tonnes of cargo. Much less the 100+ tonnes that we should really be able to fly. If there's any place I think the plan could have been better executed, it's in requiring a new launch vehicle for the CEV. They could have taken an existing rocket off the (very large) shelf and man-rated it.
As for the Ba-330, I agree wholeheartedly. Since a space station is designed with extended life support, you could even make a spaceship out of it. Just hook it up with sufficient Ion Engine power (a detachable sled perhaps?), and you can take a leisurely cruise up to the moon. It might take a month or two either way, but you'll get there safely and in relative comfort.
I agree wholeheartedly. Just as I'm sure you'll agree that this work never would have seen the light of day had Bigelow not purchased the rights.
NASA does a lot of cool stuff. Unfortunately, anything that gets farther along than a pipe-dream becomes fodder for politicking. If Bigelow has proved anything, I think it's that shunting it to the private sector (as in, the real private sector, not a Lockheed-Martin contract) is a great way to overcome the red-tape of government. Hopefully, this will boomerang back around and allow NASA to more quickly deploy space resources.
...the Atari Puffer. That was not a saleable idea either.
The President makes ZERO decisions? You seriously need to check that. Wikipedia says it quite well, so I'll just quote them:
Executive does not mean "do nothing". It means that President gets the power to control things that need immediate attention, and Congress gets to make the laws within which the President works. It's checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances. Bush has not done anything with this order that Presidents before him have not done.
Not at all. I don't see why you'd want to sign a new treaty that says, "No, you can't build nuclear engines" when that is exactly what the space program needs. The existing treaties on nuclear test bans have made the issues with weapons proliferations nearly non-existant among the major super-powers, so for what purpose are new ones needed? Even if a new test ban treaty was necessary, all this says is that such a treaty would be unacceptable if it failed to provide an exception for space travel.
That's exactly what it's referring to. I didn't link to the 1963 Test Bad Treaty and the Orion Project for my health. The 1963 treaty killed nuclear propulsion still-born. Well, now we want to go to Mars all the sudden. If we look at our options for the necessary energy and propulsion, Nuclear is the only one that makes sense.
Keep in mind that this document is guidance on how to interpret these treaties when related to "peaceful purposes". (Such as new engines.) Placing tactical nukes in space (something a bit different than the nuke configuration the Orion used) would still be a violation of the Internation Law that the U.S. agreed to. Nothing in this document changes that.
Does it? The US is to "opppose new legal regimes" and proposed arms agreements "must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations" in space. Read in context, the document states that treaties like the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty shouldn't interfere with peaceful space technology.
Yet folks are latching onto little pieces like "legal regimes" and twisting them out of context. So far, the only answer to that twisting has been, "Bush means something other than what he's saying." Well that's fine and dandy, but what he's saying is still what he's saying.
Translation: I'm not paranoid, everyone IS out to get me!
Seriously, grow up. I tried to provide you with educational information, and you responded with an unhinged attack. *shrug* If you want to look unhinged, be my guest.
Yeah, that's kind of what the President of the United States of America does. The decisions get made between him and Congress, and it's the responsibility of the rest of the government to carry out the orders given to them. In this case, those orders are "peaceful expansion toward space, with an eye for defense as necessary."
So your opinion is that the classified section of the orders state, "ignore all that crap about peace. We want big-ass WEAPONS!"?
You really should listen to yourself sometime. What you're saying, in effect, is that the only reason why Griffin has been so good for NASA is because he's carrying out Bush's conspiracy to secretly place weapons in space that you, I, Europe, China, and just about anyone else with a telescope won't be able to find? All so that Bush can become the Ruler Of The World!
Now that you mention it, I think I saw that in a movie.
Welp, I'll leave you to it Mr. Little. Meanwhile, millions of Americans will be happily picking up weapons and ammo (that apparently it's "too late" to get) to make certain of the outcome should Soap, Ballots, and Jury fail.
A bomb-pumped laser is a long way from a "nuke". The former is a method of generating a massive-energy pulse to power a defensive laser (intended to shoot down incoming warheads), and harmlessly destroys itself in the process. You might consider getting edumacated* about the ups, downs, and effectiveness of different space weaponry. It would greatly assist you in making your points more clearly.
* yes, that's an attempt at humor
Yes, from that perspective it could be done. Unfortunately, we don't currently have any such boosters that are sufficient for the task. The ISS experiences a great deal of atmospheric drag, requiring that the attached boosters provide enough thrust to overcome that drag during the shift. Such boosters also need to provide enough power not to destablize the orbit during the movement of the station. Should the orbit become too elliptical, the station will crash into the lower atmosphere on its return orbit.
Today, the Space Shuttle gives the ISS an occasional boost using its high-powered engines. There's just enough fuel to keep the station in its current orbit, but not enough to really move it anywhere. So we'd need to develop a new method of boosting the station. The Ion Engines we have right now (to use the primary example of high Isp engines) would be difficult to make work. So you'd need to either develop a new array of Ions, a new Ion engine, or beta-test a new engine altogher. All those options are quite expensive, and of questionable cost/return.
Not really. The thing weighs in at about 2.5 times what the Saturn V could lift to orbit. Attempting a major shift in orbit would require so much fuel as to be impractical. It would probably be cheaper and easier to boost a new space station into a different orbit.
I think your post speaks for itself. High on hyperbole, low on any relevant facts. Especially the part where you missed the "Rumsfield problem is a separate issue."
You have your opinion and I have mine. Unfortunately, your opinion is mostly based on your hatred for our president. It completely ignores that there might just be (maybe? just maybe?) other folks involved in these decisions. Other folks like Michael Griffin, perhaps the greatest thing to happen to NASA since Kennedy. Other folks like you and I, and the feedback we've been sending to our government for a long time. Other folks like Canada and the EU who have their own interests in our space program.
Now that there's actual progress being made toward space, suddenly we're afraid? Space is a big, and quite scary place. The technologies necessary to reach space are likewise big and scary. After reading this document, I cannot find the faults that other people so fervently insist are there. (Most folks seem to prefer taking text out of context to make it fit their view on the issue.) It spells out, quite completely I might add, the steps that our government should take for peaceful use of space. It also makes clear that we do not want to be the agressors. Like it or not, these instructions are the ones being given to NASA and the rest of our government.
You are saying that these agencies will read between the lines to help Bush become "the emperor" of the United States Empire. That will only happen if the entire government is as corrupt as you are accusing Bush of being. If that truly is the case, then may I suggest Soap, Ballots, Jury, and Ammo. In that order.
Well, that's your opinion. Officially, Bush has spelled out a guidance document that instructs our government to act in a peaceful manner. You can argue that he means something else, but then you'll need to get the full cooperation of the rest of the government to follow that hidden meaning. That's a lot of backroom meetings!
You have exactly 22 days to pay for your stuff to fly before the "real thing" goes up. Get moving!
One of the great things about the private sector is that it tends to move a lot faster than the government. Which means that a space station gets completed in-line with the actual development time rather than in government politicking time. So NASA should be able to purchase Space Stations off the open market very soon now. Certainly, the development of this technology has progressed a lot faster than when NASA owned it.
I understand your point, but I'm merely pointing out that the ISS is not a useful space station. The most likely replacement will come in the form of Bigelow's Inflatible Space Stations. (Which are amazingly close to production.) Barring that, the U.S. should look to its next-generation super-boosters to put up cheaper and more useful space stations based on existing technology.
In either case, the ISS is still a dud.
That would be the part where I actually read the document and understood its meaning rather than getting my opinions from a Slashdot summary.
What part of it don't you understand?