Then I would surely like to retract the statement I made back then. Because once can be a mistake, twice starts to look suspicious. There are limits to far one can grant people the benefit of the doubt. This limit has now been reached. (And will certainly be broken if/when this happens again.)
At least it did this morning. Might have changed until now. However, quote:
Sow-Hsin Chen, MIT professor emeritus in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering and senior author of a paper describing the new method, says it should make it possible to increase the storage capacity of the activated carbon material by fine-tuning the size and concentrations of the particles of platinum and carbon. The team also hopes to identify a catalyst that isn't quite as expensive as platinum.
So who the hell approved a story that says "Now an MIT-led research team has demonstrated a method that could allow hydrogen to be stored inexpensively at room temperature." If you follow the link it says that a way to inexpensively store hydrogen at room temperature is exactly what they haven't found.
Oh c'mon, NASA couldn't plan ahead for 10 years when it became clear that the Shuttle was history. It couldn't plan ahead and see that constellation was a sham. It couldn't plan ahead a see that Ares I wouldn't work.
It couldn't plan ahead and see that the Space Shuttle - as part of a huge plan to build a space station and spaceships in orbit - was a failure from the start, when budgets for those other projects had not been provided and the Shuttle was the *only* thing that was kept... as a Shuttle flying nowhere, coming back from nowhere and doing nothing in particular.
Ion engines have been around for decades now and NASA still celebrates their use as a demonstration of how "high tech" NASA is.
Most satellites and space probes still use extremely inefficient fuels even for large, energy intensive maneuvers - like going from Geostationary Transition Orbit(GTO) to the geostationary orbit (GSO) - mandating that they consist mostly of fuel for those maneuvers and having their life-time limited to however long it takes to deplete the fuel.
Spaceflight is one of the most conservative and unchanging industries out there. There are dozens of game changers that didn't change the game. And using extremely expensive ground installations that will provide only part-time power to a satellite - doing worse than what cheap solar panels can do much better anyway - is a particularly inauspicious candidate to actually do change anything at all.
Most parties have firm opinions on all sorts of matters. Often contradictory opinions both within one party and with other parties. In order to make those opinions seem to be substantial, they cite experts whom they know to support their opinions in the first place. Or they hire experts or "scientists" or statisticians to write up some scientific seeming study with preconceived conclusions.
Given that, I prefer a party that limits its opinions to things it (and me) truly believes in. And tries to use its own best judgment and explicitly that of its voters on those points where it doesn't - instead of stubbornly staying with a party line it is keeping only because it has adopted some opinion to some point for some reason in the past and now can't change it, because of they've already backed those random opinions up with heaps and heaps of lies and propaganda that would fly in its face if it were to change even some of those opinions.
The funny thing is of course how the other parties reacted. When it became clear that the Pirate Party would likely get into the parliament (predicted to get 6.5% at most), they were already scandalized, how anybody could vote such loonies. Now, I must confess I haven't watched all the reactions of other parties, but after the election both SPD and CDU were dismissive to the point of insulting those who voted for the Pirate Party. (Whose voters are more educated than the average of the electorate.)
A representative of the Left party pointed out that having to few members nominated than the seats they won indicated that they must have overestimated themselves (sic!). Green Representative Renate Künast claimed that her party got the most gains of all parties - the Green Party gained 4.5% more votes than during the last election in 2006... but the Pirate Party gained about 6% over that result - reaching 9%. Also none, none of the other parties saw fit to even mention the name Pirate Party even once. They all skirted the issue by saying something like - those others, a new party in the left spectrum or whatever.
Aloofness abounds among established parties, caring about their claim to power first, other parties in the government next and the people... oh... well what? The people? Who's that?
Short version: The Apollo space program did work. Certainly not as a science program, but as a mission the society of the United States of America regarded as important and worthwhile to do for the sake of pursuing the goal and reaching it.
We're already seeing the fallout of this ideology in the form of mandatory burning of food in Europe and the USA as biofuels. Not to mention that this debate is hiding the fact that the developing countries are catching up to our economies while the production of energy resources cannot be expanded indefinitely. In other words: The industrialized countries will have to share those resources with the developing countries, which is something they are perfectly unwilling to admit to the public. And now they are trying to pull out any argument they can find to limit the use of those resources, without having to admit that this is what they are doing. The problem with that is the distortion of science through politics pushing scientific inquiry away from "politically sensitive" studies (those studying negative feedback mechanisms of climate) into ones that are more compatible with prevailing notions (those studying positive feedbacks).
If you are not looking for negative feedback mechanisms - or don't fund research on negative feedback mechanisms - guess what, all you'll find are positive feedback mechanisms that will inevitable support your preconceived conclusion that the positive feedback far outweighs the negative. And this is much worse than ignorance - it is selective ignorance.
What those idiots don't seem to realize, is that the effects of volcanic eruptions and the associated decline of global temperatures has always had catastrophic consequences. Be it the year without summer 1816 because of the Mt. Tambora eruption, the famines of 536 or the the Hatepe Eruption of 180AD.
Well, try to fill in the gap then, if you think I didn't say enough favor of manned spaceflight, then let me assure you that you are free to make up your mind, whether or not there is any other potential benefit in it besides the economic or scientific one.
I've tried to give a somewhat longer account of my thinking on my blog.
If you can't make up your mind, what "my beef is against" - then maybe I just don't have one?
Just because there is no promise of tangible economic benefit in manned spaceflight, doesn't mean that there isn't any other benefit in manned spaceflight (tangible or otherwise).
What is NASA going to do with those two flights and what are they going to do next? There is no credible plan at all. Fly to some asteroid, then maybe to mars. But in order to do what? Put a flag in the sand of Mars so that half a century later somebody can fly a space probe to the planet and make a picture to combat the conspiracy theories that the Mars flight was all fake?
There is no vision in this other than giving even more money to the firms that provided overpriced space ships and rockets in the past. There is no research in this, other than whatever happens to be picked up along the way by some great coincidence, just as with Apollo that had a grand total on one scientist flying to the moon.
If you want to do manned spaceflight, you need a vision or it doesn't work. Because manned spaceflight in and of itself is stupid. As stupid as plonking down huge stones after dragging them for kilometers through the dirt in order to build Stone Henge. As just as stupid as breaking out stones in a quarry, carrying them along the Nile and building pyramids. Or wasting your time to write a symphony, playing football, chess or go (my favorite).
There is no credible economic reason. There is very little indication, that the scientific gains of manned spaceflight will be worth the monetary expenditure for centuries. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth it, if that is what you decide to focus on. If you say, we think it's worth it, because human nature sometimes requires a higher goal that doesn't have a lot to do with the individuals of the society, but the society as a whole - and as such can truly be enjoyed by all because nobody has any tangible benefit - then this is a good enough reason.
But unfortunately our societies have devolved to the point of regarding everything that doesn't have a tangible benefit to identifiable individuals as a waste of time - unless it is part of those practices that were grandfathered in from eras when people thought otherwise.
As I mentioned further upthread, the problem is that cars are using ever more power - because people agreed that they want to drive them fast. This not only implies a lot of power usage, but also extra weight for safety features. An electric car that does no more than Mach 0.04-0.05 (roughly 50-60km/h) and weighs as much as a small walrus (about 500 kg) could have a the kind of range people are used to these days.
The problem really is the other cars being too heavy and being capable of driving too fast (that and people not using IS-units) - which has implications on safety and the expectations of car owners. Light, small, moderately fast and cheap cars (about $2000) with relatively short range (about 50km+ @ 50km/h) would be perfectly sufficient for most things people do with their cars - but you can't buy them. The current set of incentives and lack of infrastructure just gets you overpowered cars with huge and incredibly expensive batteries and still nowhere near the common range. Nothing a reasonable person would buy.
If you're looking for a revolution, look at the cars, don't look at the batteries.
The Lowtechmagazine ran a story on the development of electric cars and batteries last year:
In spite of this, the 2010 vehicle has a much better battery under the hood than the 1908 vehicle. The Fritchle Electric had lead-acid batteries, like all its contemporaries, with an energy density between 20 and 40 Wh/kg (early 1900 batteries had energy densities of only 10 to 15 Wh/kg). The Nissan and the Mitsubishi have a more powerful lithium-ion battery with an energy density of around 140 Wh/kg.
The Nissan's battery can thus store 3.5 to 7 times more energy for a given weight than an average early electric from about 1910.
The gain in runtime of laptops is mostly a matter of them getting much more efficient and using much less power over the last 20 years. The failure of cars to get greater range is mostly a matter of them getting much less efficient and using ever more power over the last 120 years.
C'mon. How often did we read this stuff? How often will we keep reading it again?
For over 100 years now, miracle batteries for electric cars have been supposed to be just around the corner.
I'll quote from the link I gave:
"A large number of people interested in stored power are looking forward to a revolution in the generating power of storage batteries, and it is the opinion of many that the long-looked-for, light weight, high capacity battery will soon be discovered." (source, 1901).
"The demand for a proper automobile storage battery is so crying that it soon must result in the appearance of the desired accumulator [battery]. Everywhere in the history of industrial progress, invention has followed close in the wake of necessity" (Electrical Review, 1901).
Can't just finally file them right next to the perpetuum mobile cranks and move on until somebody actually delivers on those stupid promises?
When will you guys finally understand, that doing everything just one way is the surest way to fail. There is no reason not to use wind, solar, geothermal or biomass where it is available and where it can be used sustainably with minimal (additional) damage to the environment. Of course, it's not necessarily cheap and I don't believe there is enough of them to provide for all the energy we need.
But again, no reason not to use them, provided that the public isn't being mislead about costs and usefulness of the results. Otherwise, it's going to end just like NASA.
A few obvious questions about those renewable energy sources he wants to use:
Which ones? Are they used in a sustainable way? Where will it be placed? Who will finance it how? What are the limits to environmental damage and destruction caused by them? How will energy from wind and solar be stored? Who will pay for use and installation of storage? What will be the energy source for the other 40% of electricity? What will they do about the other 60% or so of energy that are not electricity and are currently provided mostly by gas and oil, being used for heating, industrial processes and powering vehicles?
Slashdot Mirror
The Ford T cost $240 in 1925. That's $3000 in today's money. If you want a revolution, what you want is low prices.
Then I would surely like to retract the statement I made back then. Because once can be a mistake, twice starts to look suspicious. There are limits to far one can grant people the benefit of the doubt. This limit has now been reached. (And will certainly be broken if/when this happens again.)
Sow-Hsin Chen, MIT professor emeritus in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering and senior author of a paper describing the new method, says it should make it possible to increase the storage capacity of the activated carbon material by fine-tuning the size and concentrations of the particles of platinum and carbon. The team also hopes to identify a catalyst that isn't quite as expensive as platinum.
So who the hell approved a story that says "Now an MIT-led research team has demonstrated a method that could allow hydrogen to be stored inexpensively at room temperature." If you follow the link it says that a way to inexpensively store hydrogen at room temperature is exactly what they haven't found.
Oh c'mon, NASA couldn't plan ahead for 10 years when it became clear that the Shuttle was history. It couldn't plan ahead and see that constellation was a sham. It couldn't plan ahead a see that Ares I wouldn't work.
... as a Shuttle flying nowhere, coming back from nowhere and doing nothing in particular.
It couldn't plan ahead and see that the Space Shuttle - as part of a huge plan to build a space station and spaceships in orbit - was a failure from the start, when budgets for those other projects had not been provided and the Shuttle was the *only* thing that was kept
Ion engines have been around for decades now and NASA still celebrates their use as a demonstration of how "high tech" NASA is.
Most satellites and space probes still use extremely inefficient fuels even for large, energy intensive maneuvers - like going from Geostationary Transition Orbit(GTO) to the geostationary orbit (GSO) - mandating that they consist mostly of fuel for those maneuvers and having their life-time limited to however long it takes to deplete the fuel.
Spaceflight is one of the most conservative and unchanging industries out there. There are dozens of game changers that didn't change the game. And using extremely expensive ground installations that will provide only part-time power to a satellite - doing worse than what cheap solar panels can do much better anyway - is a particularly inauspicious candidate to actually do change anything at all.
In short: NASA, do us all a favor and shut up!
Most parties have firm opinions on all sorts of matters. Often contradictory opinions both within one party and with other parties. In order to make those opinions seem to be substantial, they cite experts whom they know to support their opinions in the first place. Or they hire experts or "scientists" or statisticians to write up some scientific seeming study with preconceived conclusions.
Given that, I prefer a party that limits its opinions to things it (and me) truly believes in. And tries to use its own best judgment and explicitly that of its voters on those points where it doesn't - instead of stubbornly staying with a party line it is keeping only because it has adopted some opinion to some point for some reason in the past and now can't change it, because of they've already backed those random opinions up with heaps and heaps of lies and propaganda that would fly in its face if it were to change even some of those opinions.
The funny thing is of course how the other parties reacted. When it became clear that the Pirate Party would likely get into the parliament (predicted to get 6.5% at most), they were already scandalized, how anybody could vote such loonies. Now, I must confess I haven't watched all the reactions of other parties, but after the election both SPD and CDU were dismissive to the point of insulting those who voted for the Pirate Party. (Whose voters are more educated than the average of the electorate.)
... but the Pirate Party gained about 6% over that result - reaching 9%. Also none, none of the other parties saw fit to even mention the name Pirate Party even once. They all skirted the issue by saying something like - those others, a new party in the left spectrum or whatever.
... oh ... well what? The people? Who's that?
A representative of the Left party pointed out that having to few members nominated than the seats they won indicated that they must have overestimated themselves (sic!). Green Representative Renate Künast claimed that her party got the most gains of all parties - the Green Party gained 4.5% more votes than during the last election in 2006
Aloofness abounds among established parties, caring about their claim to power first, other parties in the government next and the people
Little creaks happen all the time in that place. Why is it suddenly deemed worth reporting?
That's the problem here. Had I been part of the ground crew, I would have certainly been worried.
Short version: The Apollo space program did work. Certainly not as a science program, but as a mission the society of the United States of America regarded as important and worthwhile to do for the sake of pursuing the goal and reaching it.
Long version: here.
Exactly.
We're already seeing the fallout of this ideology in the form of mandatory burning of food in Europe and the USA as biofuels. Not to mention that this debate is hiding the fact that the developing countries are catching up to our economies while the production of energy resources cannot be expanded indefinitely. In other words: The industrialized countries will have to share those resources with the developing countries, which is something they are perfectly unwilling to admit to the public. And now they are trying to pull out any argument they can find to limit the use of those resources, without having to admit that this is what they are doing. The problem with that is the distortion of science through politics pushing scientific inquiry away from "politically sensitive" studies (those studying negative feedback mechanisms of climate) into ones that are more compatible with prevailing notions (those studying positive feedbacks).
If you are not looking for negative feedback mechanisms - or don't fund research on negative feedback mechanisms - guess what, all you'll find are positive feedback mechanisms that will inevitable support your preconceived conclusion that the positive feedback far outweighs the negative. And this is much worse than ignorance - it is selective ignorance.
What those idiots don't seem to realize, is that the effects of volcanic eruptions and the associated decline of global temperatures has always had catastrophic consequences. Be it the year without summer 1816 because of the Mt. Tambora eruption, the famines of 536 or the the Hatepe Eruption of 180AD.
Well, try to fill in the gap then, if you think I didn't say enough favor of manned spaceflight, then let me assure you that you are free to make up your mind, whether or not there is any other potential benefit in it besides the economic or scientific one. I've tried to give a somewhat longer account of my thinking on my blog.
If you can't make up your mind, what "my beef is against" - then maybe I just don't have one?
Just because there is no promise of tangible economic benefit in manned spaceflight, doesn't mean that there isn't any other benefit in manned spaceflight (tangible or otherwise).
What is NASA going to do with those two flights and what are they going to do next? There is no credible plan at all. Fly to some asteroid, then maybe to mars. But in order to do what? Put a flag in the sand of Mars so that half a century later somebody can fly a space probe to the planet and make a picture to combat the conspiracy theories that the Mars flight was all fake?
There is no vision in this other than giving even more money to the firms that provided overpriced space ships and rockets in the past. There is no research in this, other than whatever happens to be picked up along the way by some great coincidence, just as with Apollo that had a grand total on one scientist flying to the moon.
If you want to do manned spaceflight, you need a vision or it doesn't work. Because manned spaceflight in and of itself is stupid. As stupid as plonking down huge stones after dragging them for kilometers through the dirt in order to build Stone Henge. As just as stupid as breaking out stones in a quarry, carrying them along the Nile and building pyramids. Or wasting your time to write a symphony, playing football, chess or go (my favorite).
There is no credible economic reason. There is very little indication, that the scientific gains of manned spaceflight will be worth the monetary expenditure for centuries. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth it, if that is what you decide to focus on. If you say, we think it's worth it, because human nature sometimes requires a higher goal that doesn't have a lot to do with the individuals of the society, but the society as a whole - and as such can truly be enjoyed by all because nobody has any tangible benefit - then this is a good enough reason.
But unfortunately our societies have devolved to the point of regarding everything that doesn't have a tangible benefit to identifiable individuals as a waste of time - unless it is part of those practices that were grandfathered in from eras when people thought otherwise.
You see. That's the point.
As I mentioned further upthread, the problem is that cars are using ever more power - because people agreed that they want to drive them fast. This not only implies a lot of power usage, but also extra weight for safety features. An electric car that does no more than Mach 0.04-0.05 (roughly 50-60km/h) and weighs as much as a small walrus (about 500 kg) could have a the kind of range people are used to these days.
The problem really is the other cars being too heavy and being capable of driving too fast (that and people not using IS-units) - which has implications on safety and the expectations of car owners. Light, small, moderately fast and cheap cars (about $2000) with relatively short range (about 50km+ @ 50km/h) would be perfectly sufficient for most things people do with their cars - but you can't buy them. The current set of incentives and lack of infrastructure just gets you overpowered cars with huge and incredibly expensive batteries and still nowhere near the common range. Nothing a reasonable person would buy.
If you're looking for a revolution, look at the cars, don't look at the batteries.
In spite of this, the 2010 vehicle has a much better battery under the hood than the 1908 vehicle. The Fritchle Electric had lead-acid batteries, like all its contemporaries, with an energy density between 20 and 40 Wh/kg (early 1900 batteries had energy densities of only 10 to 15 Wh/kg). The Nissan and the Mitsubishi have a more powerful lithium-ion battery with an energy density of around 140 Wh/kg.
The Nissan's battery can thus store 3.5 to 7 times more energy for a given weight than an average early electric from about 1910.
The gain in runtime of laptops is mostly a matter of them getting much more efficient and using much less power over the last 20 years. The failure of cars to get greater range is mostly a matter of them getting much less efficient and using ever more power over the last 120 years.
But where is the Virus battery? I mean, WE HAVE BEEN PROMISED they'd be around.
For over 100 years now, miracle batteries for electric cars have been supposed to be just around the corner.
I'll quote from the link I gave:
"A large number of people interested in stored power are looking forward to a revolution in the generating power of storage batteries, and it is the opinion of many that the long-looked-for, light weight, high capacity battery will soon be discovered." (source, 1901).
"The demand for a proper automobile storage battery is so crying that it soon must result in the appearance of the desired accumulator [battery]. Everywhere in the history of industrial progress, invention has followed close in the wake of necessity" (Electrical Review, 1901).
Can't just finally file them right next to the perpetuum mobile cranks and move on until somebody actually delivers on those stupid promises?
When will you guys finally understand, that doing everything just one way is the surest way to fail. There is no reason not to use wind, solar, geothermal or biomass where it is available and where it can be used sustainably with minimal (additional) damage to the environment. Of course, it's not necessarily cheap and I don't believe there is enough of them to provide for all the energy we need.
But again, no reason not to use them, provided that the public isn't being mislead about costs and usefulness of the results. Otherwise, it's going to end just like NASA.
A few obvious questions about those renewable energy sources he wants to use:
Which ones? Are they used in a sustainable way? Where will it be placed? Who will finance it how? What are the limits to environmental damage and destruction caused by them? How will energy from wind and solar be stored? Who will pay for use and installation of storage? What will be the energy source for the other 40% of electricity? What will they do about the other 60% or so of energy that are not electricity and are currently provided mostly by gas and oil, being used for heating, industrial processes and powering vehicles?
Strangely enough, 2M+ UIDs seem to be much rarer than 100k- ...
Dunno if that says anything about Slashdot. Or are those all the anonymous cowards being ashamed of theirs?
It's unfortunately a very rare thing to see such mistakes corrected, so thanks a lot for doing it.
Not the list itself, but try this one: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/9480/fukushima-long-ranked-most-hazardous-plant