So goes the theory.. Nobody knows if that's true or not, not even Musk.
Space X/Musk is trying to salvage his reputation and keep flying his toys at government expense by saying that, but the fact remains, THIS vehicle was lost in it's entirety and I see some really compelling reasons to think what he's saying is just wishful thinking at this point.
This loss was at about 120 seconds into the flight, which is about halfway though the first stage's burn which is where the G loads really start to get high. The first stage is producing good thrust, but has burned though a lot of it's fuel so is pushing harder on the upper stages. This is the part of the flight where it's going to take a lot of power to separate the capsule from the rest of the vehicle and get it far enough away to survive the breakup and explosion as the lower stages come apart.
But, all that being said, Musk is just engaged in PR. They where already planning to test the Dragon's Launch Abort System under worst case loads in the fall of 2015. As I understand this was to be the next flight for NASA, and he's just setting up the PR machine for later. So I'm not buying what Musk is saying, he's just trying to stay in business where they clearly have some issues to work though with their primary customer.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that $250 hammer...
Space X has apparently having systemic Quality Control problems. A structural failure of ANY component that costs you a vehicle in flight is a SERIOUS issue with your process. Either they didn't recognize this component's critical nature in their design reviews and properly established safety margins for it's strength, or they unknowingly used substandard parts in the assembly.
Structural failure should NEVER be the cause of an accident. Structure is NOT rocket science, but well understood and easily tested before you put a design into the air. The loads on the structure should be easily calculated and the structure designed with sufficient margin to handle them. Testing the structure to the margin limits is not that hard and doesn't require you go fly the thing. Aerospace engineers are very familiar with the process.
That said, it is pretty stupid that Space X has not been testing random parts
So uh... "Further testing of struts in stock found one that failed at 2,000 pounds of force"
Sounds to me like they likely were testing them at random and then decided to start testing a vastly significant number of them to troubleshoot.
Which tells me they may have a QA process issue that compounds a design issue. NEVER do you take a single failure risk in a human rated system's structural components unless you are SURE the components are sound. So if this strut was a critical structural component without any backup and you are not totally sure it can take the load before you fly the assembly, it's a process problem.
They do want to make this a human rated system right? That goal is in serious jeopardy now. You cannot afford to "learn on the fly" like this and arrive at a human rated design. You are going to build and launch a LOT of vehicles, fixing the problems as they crop up, before the statistics will be good enough. The cheaper way is to design sufficient safety margins into the system, do a few launches and deal with the issues as they arise, but unless you REALLY mess up, any system you hope to human rate is not going to have this many loss of vehicle failures... Structural failures should NEVER happen if you are on this track, because structure should be the easiest thing to get right because it's testable on the ground...
IMHO Space X is doing this wrong, and a structural failure is a serious problem that goes beyond this one failure....
You can test random struts, but you can't test ALL struts or you're left with no struts. Sounds like they didn't test the right ones is all.
Quite true, but there are OTHER ways of figuring out the strength of the part other than testing them to failure or causing damage to the parts. Some of these methods are quite expensive, but effective. How you get a one part that's 1/4th the strength the design requires through a manufacturing process, onto a flight ready hardware assembly and not know it says serious problems lurk within. Seems Space-X has some defects in it's quality assurance processes, and that should scare you more than this one launch failure. They are playing way too fast and loose with quality and I'd be very worried about their efforts towards getting "human" rated are not going well.
This was a structural failure. A failure that can likely be traced to a part that was too weak for the designed loads. This isn't a DESIGN failure, it's a QUALITY failure, and that puts the whole program into question. What has to happen now is that the whole QA process needs to be revisited and revamped to prevent structural components from sneaking though which are not strong enough to do what they are designed to. THEN you have to go though your whole stock of parts, sub assemblies, and flight ready assemblies and figure out what you can verify as trustworthy using your NEW QA process, throw out the rest and order, assemble and test replacements.
This isn't an easy or quick fix...
Then there is the whole, our supplier lied to us, approach, which will be quicker to deal with, but only because you just have to obtain a batch of replacement struts, fully tested and verified, replace all existing hardware that used the old ones by either reworking the assemblies or building new ones that have the new parts.....
I'm guessing Space-X will opt for the latter in public, but unless they sue the supplier for damages, the problem really is the former, which scares me..
Points 6 and 10 are pure hokum, an attempt to get zero terms into the Drake equation, to yield a zero result.
I'm glad you recognize the argument.. But the point here is that habitable planets are, by definition, exceedingly rare. There may be millions if you look far enough, but you have to start with BILLIONS of solar systems to get to that number... The chances of actually finding a star at the center of a solar system with a habitable planet orbiting it are pretty slim. But that's NOT all I'm saying...
The problem of finding "proof of alien life" is much more complex and even more unlikely than there actually being life someplace else (and is what I'm discussing the impossibility of). Having life elsewhere and FINDING PROOF of it is a totally different kettle of fish and adds a whole lot more to the equations. The needle in a haystack doesn't go far enough to illustrate the impossible task this is. We are looking for a needle in a haystack of haystacks from light years away using a pen light at night..
Anybody can construct hypothetical arguments that *could* be possible actual events. Something being "possible" in your imagination does not make it possible in the real world. It's possible Emalia Earhart is alive today and I can imagine many implausible ways this could be true, but that doesn't mean it's worth looking into or that I can prove my nutty theories.. Such is the case with "finding proof of alien life" on other planets. Not going to happen in my lifetime....
Personally, I quite agree with you. The Bible is silent on this question and is written from the human perspective of one creation and one Creator. I see no reason to limit the Creator to just one creation or limiting that creation to just one planet, He could have more if He whished.
However, I don't think the existence of other worlds or creations matter to the relationship between the Creator and life here on earth for a number of reasons. One, the Bible is silent on the subject, so the Creator didn't think it was important enough to mention. We are highly unlikely to find another planet with life and if we do there will be zero interaction with them because we will all be dead and gone before any communications could be established....
But as you say, we are not going to find anything of import here..Certainly not life on another planet...
Where I understand Atheism doesn't want to think of itself as a religion, it meets all the requirements of one as far as I can tell. It even has it's zealots out trying to poke other "religions" in the eye and giving it a bad name.... Then there is the resorting to name calling....
Lighten up and accept that many consider Atheism a religion... In many ways it is...
There is the short term view, and the long term one...
You have a decidedly short term view apparently, because the logical extension of social programs IS communism in all it's glory. While keeping a military is actually one of the few examples of something our founding fathers actually had the federal government involved in.. They didn't print and spend bundles of money on "social welfare" programs, but they DID authorize a lot of defense spending.... Well that and outright land purchases.. But they where more concerned about the future well being of the nation as a whole than the "Let's give away money to the poor" short term idea.
"Give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, TEACH him to fish and he can feed himself for life..." We give away way too many fish...
For Pete's sake... It's not like the expensive toilet seat was available at the local Home Depot... It was an aircraft part as I recall, one that the manufacturer stopped making decades before, and had to set up to build. So the costs wasn't for the seat, but the tooling, setup and manufacture of a one off airplane part and documentation to prove it met the original manufacturer's specifications for use on an aircraft.
If you have EVER seen how the federal government works it's supply systems, specifically the defense department and the Federal Stock System, it's abundantly clear WHY things are so expensive. It's not about the actual thing they need, but the paperwork that proves that what the supplier sold to the government was EXACTLY what the stock system requires.
I actually know about the $250 hammer first hand.... Let's just say this hammer was for a specific job and had specific requirements because of where and how it was used. It had to be made of specific materials, be of a specific shape, weight. It had to be manufactured in a specific way. Each of these requirements had justified reasons and $250 was a deal for it if you ask me.
I just read TFA. It is millions with an M, our of a total spend of $1 billion. That's mouse nuts. I mean, that's a chunk of change in absolute terms but it's around 15 cents per citizen.
If you want to get outraged there are higher priority issues. Just apply Amdahl's law to budget reduction: you have to reduce where the money is spent.
Oh, but you DON'T touch that third rail of politics. You cannot even slow the growth of things like Medicare, Social Security, and other social programs (like Obama Care, Welfare, Head Start, School Lunches what have you) without getting accused of outright hate, racism or worse.
Where both sides play lip service to deficit reduction, balance budgets and the like, FEW politicians even dare to get specific because they will be castigated in the press, by their opponents and otherwise vilified for suggesting we not spend the money "for the children" or some other such nonsense...
At the very least it's a 1 in 8 "Planets" do not support life, or if you count Pluto and the other "dwarf planets" you have a 1 in 13 chance. If you count ALL the bodies that orbit the sun, then the numbers jump into the millions to 1.
Remember, if any of the following where different, earth would not support life:
1. Molten Iron Core
2. The amount of water
3. Our atmosphere's depth and it's general makeup needs to be pretty close..
4. Earth's Magnetic Field
5. The size of the planet needs to be within a narrow range with earth being near the smaller end of that range.
6. The orbit and size of the moon has made life possible, some system which is similar would be necessary.
7. The kind of star we orbit is important.
8. The distance we orbit this kind of star is important.
9. The life cycle of our star verses the situation on earth that allowed life is important... (If you go much older in the star's age, earth is not habitable by anything..
10. The rotation of our planet is important to life, having day/night cycles which are not too fast or slow is important to our existence.
Earth is pretty unique and if you believe in evolution, then you have to realize that life as we know it is very, very, dependent on much of this uniqueness for it's very existence. As I understand it, even on earth life has very nearly been eradicated multiple times though the ages, even here. Not to mention that we already KNOW that life will cease to exist on this planet in the future as the sun cycles though it's life, uses up it's existing hydrogen fuel and switches over to fission of heaver things, which will put earth INSIDE the sun's outermost layers.
No, what we have here right now on earth is pretty unique, and that is not really debatable.
May I suggest that you try the "Life adapts and the situation on earth might fall in a large range of acceptable environments" argument... It's better than you laughing at what's obviously true, we live on a unique planet...;)
It doesn't have to be a transmission. Maybe they're inadvertently emitting radio as a byproduct of a large-scale industrial process.
Which will be extremely hard to determine ISN'T from natural causes... It will be 1. Very weak by the time we here it, 2. Will be changed by the affects of traveling though space/time for very long periods of time. 3. Will be literally a small part of a huge number of very loud emitters...
Oh, and I'd like to point out, that if our experience with RF sources for industrial purposes usually involve heating water, which uses spectrum that is not going to be very good at making long distances across space where it will encounter significant amounts of water.... Well, that and because we use this spectrum so much, local sources would be really hard to rule out... Was that an alien signal or was that Joe microwaving his hotdog in the break room?
They won't confirm anything. That's why the hunt is still on for people to burn money. All they need is to believe because the absence of proof will never be enough confirmation. See: Any religion ever.
Funny you bring up religion, because Mr. Hawking is decidedly atheist. For him, the search for alien life would be vindication of his religious beliefs, at least on some level. So is it a wonder that he wouldn't jump at a chance to waste his benefactor's money for this? I don't think so. Surely he knows that the chances of successfully proving alien life are literally zero, but religion causes a lot of money to be spent on stupid things so off we go. I guess some scientists and astronomers will be kept off of welfare for a time, that's something at least...
If it's obvious to you, then maybe take 10 minutes to write down the proof. The billionaire will be happy to buy your proof for 50 millions if it's gonna save him 100 millions.
Remember that this is why "they won't find proof".
1. The circumstances for life are pretty darned unique here on Earth. While there are *possible* duplicates in other solar systems, the chances of getting a planet that is habitable in another solar system is pretty slim. It's more than just being the right distance from the sun, but the planet size, the orbit of the moon, the molten Iron core, the amount of water, carbon, etc. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that there are going to be very few that fit all the narrow margins that allow known life to evolve and exist here. The odds of finding all this on one place are pretty small.
2. The nature of "proof" would be a huge question. How would you. light years distant, observe something that proves life exists on a planet? Having water is not enough, being in the "zone" isn't either. Both would be a good start but how are we going to observe something that is undisputable proof of life? I have a few ideas, but all of these would be incredibly rare...
2.1. One way would be to observe radio signals and find ones that are not naturally made. This would be incredibly difficult. There is a LOT of very noisy things out there in nature which make some very loud and unnatural looking signals. Even if the beings at the other end where trying to send us something, the chances of receiving enough information to determine FOR SURE the transmission came from other life and not from natural causes would be nearly impossible. They would have to point a very narrow beam of energy in exactly our direction and we'd have to be listening when it arrived with a very high gain antenna pointed in exactly the right direction with the ability to listen on the right frequencies at the right time. Where this *could* be proof, should it really happen, I don't see where this is even remotely possible. And given we don't have much understanding of how RF energy flows though deep space, even if we did hear something, it's very likely we wouldn't notice it in the noise. It would be like trying to hear a pin drop on a train platform as the express was running through.
2.2. Another way we might get information about life on other planets is to observe the light spectrum reflected by or transmitted though the atmospheres of a planet of interest and look for things that only life would cause. This activity would be extremely hard and require very long observations of extremely distant objects as they orbit their suns. The only way I can imagine this working is to find a planet that is in the habitable zone and happens to have the right circumstances to allow life, but further, in order to observe it's spectrum, it will have to orbit on a plane that our solar system happens to be on, so we can observe the spectrum changes as the planet passes in front and behind it's star and calculate the differences. This will need to be done over a very long period of time because the portion of the spectrum we can observe from the planet will be TINY compared to the star and we will need to have many observations to get to a statistical assurance that we are not just seeing noise.
So, in short, Not only is alien life (Like ours) obviously going to be pretty rare because the circumstances that lead to it are pretty rare, the chances that we can observe anything approaching proof is going to be even more difficult... The chances of stumbling onto proof, even if we knew where and when to look for it, would be nearly unimaginable, but given that we don't have much clue where to start the search, and the classical "needle in a haystack" saying doesn't even begin to convey the difficulty of the task, I find this "investment" interesting, but pointless for it's stated goal. They will not find proof of life outside of our solar system.
But that's not to say there won't be good things that come of this... It just won't accomplish their stated goals..
All those 1970's disaster movies again? "The Towering Inferno", "Airport", "Airplane", "Godzilla", "The China Syndrome" and "Earthquake" must have just shown up on Netflix or something...
They are NOT documentaries, they are theatrical productions people!
No, it's not legal to just broadcast, identification or no... But in this case, the content was obviously NOT ham radio related, but more about a personal business venture or two. Well, at least that's what the FCC finally dinged him for (among other things).
In this case, the fella was automatically transmitting pre-recorded content at all hours and then couldn't (or wouldn't) prove that he actually had a real life control operator in the loop. Automatic station control is not allowed on the frequencies he used. He got further into trouble by not responding to the FCC's inquiries into his station's operation so they fined him $75K as I recall.
I'm just wondering if that includes OPERATING costs, licensing costs and maintenance? Yes? For HOW LONG?
What are the weather limitations? Wind speeds, visibility, rain, snow, ice?
I'm thinking it would be much cheaper to put up a couple of tethered balloons carrying some camera gear when the weather is good and go with that. I'm guessing it will be cheaper up front, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain... Plus, they'd be just about as functional in the same limitations as these drone thingies... Go low tech, when it does what you want. Simple is almost ALWAYS going to be cheaper...
Buy some real helicopters, then you can get humans there to do something about the problem. You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million.
5.7 million wouldn't buy you ONE reasonable sized, used, helicopter that was airworthy, much less a medevac equipped one.
I've had a FCC issued license for 30 years and I've used it for a "rag chew" on the local repeater from time to time, but I haven't a clue what "chew the carpet" means or what license the ARRL issues that gets you on a local repeater... Has the XYL been slapping you around too hard lately and you've lost your mind or is this some intentional QRM nonsense?
Nope, 1-watt is generally way too much power for Part 15 limits, with a few exceptions you are going to be limited to 1/10th of a watt or less of drive power (not RF out, DC IN to the final amplifier). Actual transmit power is going to be somewhat less than the 0.1 Watt. Plus, there are field strength limits too, so you cannot just hook up a directional antenna (like a 26db Yagi) and stay under the field strength limits very easily.
I couldn't see how this would be legal. Operating a transmitter at 900mhz requires a license. You don't simply start transmitting without either using air ways that are open to usage ( Ham operator - still requires a license to operate) or that you own the frequencies. As 900mhz is mainly cellular I didn't believe that the article was real.
Actually, the FCC does issue blanket authorizations to operate on may frequencies though Part 15 (pretty much every frequency is fair game, with a few exceptions). Part 15 requires some pretty low maximum field strengths though and has some criteria for all electronic/electric devices that emit RF however it is the field strength limits that make this device impossible to be a part 15 device, which means you are going to have to go with one of the licensed services.
CB and FRS are out because encryption is not allowed there, nor is data. Ham bands might work but you would need to get a license (not hard, really) and encryption would be a big no no. Other licensed services would be expensive and generally would require a fixed operating point which make being stealthy impossible...
I'm with you, the device may have been real, but it wasn't legal by FCC rules in the USA (or the rest of the industrialized world for that matter). Importing the devices would be a serous problem too... I'm guessing they realized that this wouldn't go well for them on a number of fronts...
Slashdot Mirror
So goes the theory.. Nobody knows if that's true or not, not even Musk.
Space X/Musk is trying to salvage his reputation and keep flying his toys at government expense by saying that, but the fact remains, THIS vehicle was lost in it's entirety and I see some really compelling reasons to think what he's saying is just wishful thinking at this point.
This loss was at about 120 seconds into the flight, which is about halfway though the first stage's burn which is where the G loads really start to get high. The first stage is producing good thrust, but has burned though a lot of it's fuel so is pushing harder on the upper stages. This is the part of the flight where it's going to take a lot of power to separate the capsule from the rest of the vehicle and get it far enough away to survive the breakup and explosion as the lower stages come apart.
But, all that being said, Musk is just engaged in PR. They where already planning to test the Dragon's Launch Abort System under worst case loads in the fall of 2015. As I understand this was to be the next flight for NASA, and he's just setting up the PR machine for later. So I'm not buying what Musk is saying, he's just trying to stay in business where they clearly have some issues to work though with their primary customer.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that $250 hammer...
Space X has apparently having systemic Quality Control problems. A structural failure of ANY component that costs you a vehicle in flight is a SERIOUS issue with your process. Either they didn't recognize this component's critical nature in their design reviews and properly established safety margins for it's strength, or they unknowingly used substandard parts in the assembly.
Structural failure should NEVER be the cause of an accident. Structure is NOT rocket science, but well understood and easily tested before you put a design into the air. The loads on the structure should be easily calculated and the structure designed with sufficient margin to handle them. Testing the structure to the margin limits is not that hard and doesn't require you go fly the thing. Aerospace engineers are very familiar with the process.
So uh... "Further testing of struts in stock found one that failed at 2,000 pounds of force"
Sounds to me like they likely were testing them at random and then decided to start testing a vastly significant number of them to troubleshoot.
Which tells me they may have a QA process issue that compounds a design issue. NEVER do you take a single failure risk in a human rated system's structural components unless you are SURE the components are sound. So if this strut was a critical structural component without any backup and you are not totally sure it can take the load before you fly the assembly, it's a process problem.
They do want to make this a human rated system right? That goal is in serious jeopardy now. You cannot afford to "learn on the fly" like this and arrive at a human rated design. You are going to build and launch a LOT of vehicles, fixing the problems as they crop up, before the statistics will be good enough. The cheaper way is to design sufficient safety margins into the system, do a few launches and deal with the issues as they arise, but unless you REALLY mess up, any system you hope to human rate is not going to have this many loss of vehicle failures... Structural failures should NEVER happen if you are on this track, because structure should be the easiest thing to get right because it's testable on the ground...
IMHO Space X is doing this wrong, and a structural failure is a serious problem that goes beyond this one failure....
You can test random struts, but you can't test ALL struts or you're left with no struts. Sounds like they didn't test the right ones is all.
Quite true, but there are OTHER ways of figuring out the strength of the part other than testing them to failure or causing damage to the parts. Some of these methods are quite expensive, but effective. How you get a one part that's 1/4th the strength the design requires through a manufacturing process, onto a flight ready hardware assembly and not know it says serious problems lurk within. Seems Space-X has some defects in it's quality assurance processes, and that should scare you more than this one launch failure. They are playing way too fast and loose with quality and I'd be very worried about their efforts towards getting "human" rated are not going well.
This was a structural failure. A failure that can likely be traced to a part that was too weak for the designed loads. This isn't a DESIGN failure, it's a QUALITY failure, and that puts the whole program into question. What has to happen now is that the whole QA process needs to be revisited and revamped to prevent structural components from sneaking though which are not strong enough to do what they are designed to. THEN you have to go though your whole stock of parts, sub assemblies, and flight ready assemblies and figure out what you can verify as trustworthy using your NEW QA process, throw out the rest and order, assemble and test replacements.
This isn't an easy or quick fix...
Then there is the whole, our supplier lied to us, approach, which will be quicker to deal with, but only because you just have to obtain a batch of replacement struts, fully tested and verified, replace all existing hardware that used the old ones by either reworking the assemblies or building new ones that have the new parts.....
I'm guessing Space-X will opt for the latter in public, but unless they sue the supplier for damages, the problem really is the former, which scares me..
Commas, quotes and antecedents lives matter.... Especially at a time like this...
So... suicide?
I'm guessing no... Accidental overdose is my bet. Of course there are a whole range of possible options...
Points 6 and 10 are pure hokum, an attempt to get zero terms into the Drake equation, to yield a zero result.
I'm glad you recognize the argument.. But the point here is that habitable planets are, by definition, exceedingly rare. There may be millions if you look far enough, but you have to start with BILLIONS of solar systems to get to that number... The chances of actually finding a star at the center of a solar system with a habitable planet orbiting it are pretty slim. But that's NOT all I'm saying...
The problem of finding "proof of alien life" is much more complex and even more unlikely than there actually being life someplace else (and is what I'm discussing the impossibility of). Having life elsewhere and FINDING PROOF of it is a totally different kettle of fish and adds a whole lot more to the equations. The needle in a haystack doesn't go far enough to illustrate the impossible task this is. We are looking for a needle in a haystack of haystacks from light years away using a pen light at night..
Anybody can construct hypothetical arguments that *could* be possible actual events. Something being "possible" in your imagination does not make it possible in the real world. It's possible Emalia Earhart is alive today and I can imagine many implausible ways this could be true, but that doesn't mean it's worth looking into or that I can prove my nutty theories.. Such is the case with "finding proof of alien life" on other planets. Not going to happen in my lifetime....
Personally, I quite agree with you. The Bible is silent on this question and is written from the human perspective of one creation and one Creator. I see no reason to limit the Creator to just one creation or limiting that creation to just one planet, He could have more if He whished.
However, I don't think the existence of other worlds or creations matter to the relationship between the Creator and life here on earth for a number of reasons. One, the Bible is silent on the subject, so the Creator didn't think it was important enough to mention. We are highly unlikely to find another planet with life and if we do there will be zero interaction with them because we will all be dead and gone before any communications could be established....
But as you say, we are not going to find anything of import here..Certainly not life on another planet...
Atheism isn't a religion, you moron..
Says who? Hawking? Somebody else? Just you?
Where I understand Atheism doesn't want to think of itself as a religion, it meets all the requirements of one as far as I can tell. It even has it's zealots out trying to poke other "religions" in the eye and giving it a bad name.... Then there is the resorting to name calling....
Lighten up and accept that many consider Atheism a religion... In many ways it is...
There is the short term view, and the long term one...
You have a decidedly short term view apparently, because the logical extension of social programs IS communism in all it's glory. While keeping a military is actually one of the few examples of something our founding fathers actually had the federal government involved in.. They didn't print and spend bundles of money on "social welfare" programs, but they DID authorize a lot of defense spending.... Well that and outright land purchases.. But they where more concerned about the future well being of the nation as a whole than the "Let's give away money to the poor" short term idea.
"Give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, TEACH him to fish and he can feed himself for life..." We give away way too many fish...
For Pete's sake... It's not like the expensive toilet seat was available at the local Home Depot... It was an aircraft part as I recall, one that the manufacturer stopped making decades before, and had to set up to build. So the costs wasn't for the seat, but the tooling, setup and manufacture of a one off airplane part and documentation to prove it met the original manufacturer's specifications for use on an aircraft.
If you have EVER seen how the federal government works it's supply systems, specifically the defense department and the Federal Stock System, it's abundantly clear WHY things are so expensive. It's not about the actual thing they need, but the paperwork that proves that what the supplier sold to the government was EXACTLY what the stock system requires.
I actually know about the $250 hammer first hand.... Let's just say this hammer was for a specific job and had specific requirements because of where and how it was used. It had to be made of specific materials, be of a specific shape, weight. It had to be manufactured in a specific way. Each of these requirements had justified reasons and $250 was a deal for it if you ask me.
I just read TFA. It is millions with an M, our of a total spend of $1 billion. That's mouse nuts. I mean, that's a chunk of change in absolute terms but it's around 15 cents per citizen.
If you want to get outraged there are higher priority issues. Just apply Amdahl's law to budget reduction: you have to reduce where the money is spent.
Oh, but you DON'T touch that third rail of politics. You cannot even slow the growth of things like Medicare, Social Security, and other social programs (like Obama Care, Welfare, Head Start, School Lunches what have you) without getting accused of outright hate, racism or worse.
Where both sides play lip service to deficit reduction, balance budgets and the like, FEW politicians even dare to get specific because they will be castigated in the press, by their opponents and otherwise vilified for suggesting we not spend the money "for the children" or some other such nonsense...
At the very least it's a 1 in 8 "Planets" do not support life, or if you count Pluto and the other "dwarf planets" you have a 1 in 13 chance. If you count ALL the bodies that orbit the sun, then the numbers jump into the millions to 1.
Remember, if any of the following where different, earth would not support life:
1. Molten Iron Core
2. The amount of water
3. Our atmosphere's depth and it's general makeup needs to be pretty close..
4. Earth's Magnetic Field
5. The size of the planet needs to be within a narrow range with earth being near the smaller end of that range.
6. The orbit and size of the moon has made life possible, some system which is similar would be necessary.
7. The kind of star we orbit is important.
8. The distance we orbit this kind of star is important.
9. The life cycle of our star verses the situation on earth that allowed life is important... (If you go much older in the star's age, earth is not habitable by anything..
10. The rotation of our planet is important to life, having day/night cycles which are not too fast or slow is important to our existence.
Earth is pretty unique and if you believe in evolution, then you have to realize that life as we know it is very, very, dependent on much of this uniqueness for it's very existence. As I understand it, even on earth life has very nearly been eradicated multiple times though the ages, even here. Not to mention that we already KNOW that life will cease to exist on this planet in the future as the sun cycles though it's life, uses up it's existing hydrogen fuel and switches over to fission of heaver things, which will put earth INSIDE the sun's outermost layers.
No, what we have here right now on earth is pretty unique, and that is not really debatable.
May I suggest that you try the "Life adapts and the situation on earth might fall in a large range of acceptable environments" argument... It's better than you laughing at what's obviously true, we live on a unique planet... ;)
It doesn't have to be a transmission. Maybe they're inadvertently emitting radio as a byproduct of a large-scale industrial process.
Which will be extremely hard to determine ISN'T from natural causes... It will be 1. Very weak by the time we here it, 2. Will be changed by the affects of traveling though space/time for very long periods of time. 3. Will be literally a small part of a huge number of very loud emitters...
Oh, and I'd like to point out, that if our experience with RF sources for industrial purposes usually involve heating water, which uses spectrum that is not going to be very good at making long distances across space where it will encounter significant amounts of water.... Well, that and because we use this spectrum so much, local sources would be really hard to rule out... Was that an alien signal or was that Joe microwaving his hotdog in the break room?
They won't confirm anything. That's why the hunt is still on for people to burn money. All they need is to believe because the absence of proof will never be enough confirmation. See: Any religion ever.
Funny you bring up religion, because Mr. Hawking is decidedly atheist. For him, the search for alien life would be vindication of his religious beliefs, at least on some level. So is it a wonder that he wouldn't jump at a chance to waste his benefactor's money for this? I don't think so. Surely he knows that the chances of successfully proving alien life are literally zero, but religion causes a lot of money to be spent on stupid things so off we go. I guess some scientists and astronomers will be kept off of welfare for a time, that's something at least...
If it's obvious to you, then maybe take 10 minutes to write down the proof. The billionaire will be happy to buy your proof for 50 millions if it's gonna save him 100 millions.
Remember that this is why "they won't find proof".
1. The circumstances for life are pretty darned unique here on Earth. While there are *possible* duplicates in other solar systems, the chances of getting a planet that is habitable in another solar system is pretty slim. It's more than just being the right distance from the sun, but the planet size, the orbit of the moon, the molten Iron core, the amount of water, carbon, etc. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that there are going to be very few that fit all the narrow margins that allow known life to evolve and exist here. The odds of finding all this on one place are pretty small.
2. The nature of "proof" would be a huge question. How would you. light years distant, observe something that proves life exists on a planet? Having water is not enough, being in the "zone" isn't either. Both would be a good start but how are we going to observe something that is undisputable proof of life? I have a few ideas, but all of these would be incredibly rare...
2.1. One way would be to observe radio signals and find ones that are not naturally made. This would be incredibly difficult. There is a LOT of very noisy things out there in nature which make some very loud and unnatural looking signals. Even if the beings at the other end where trying to send us something, the chances of receiving enough information to determine FOR SURE the transmission came from other life and not from natural causes would be nearly impossible. They would have to point a very narrow beam of energy in exactly our direction and we'd have to be listening when it arrived with a very high gain antenna pointed in exactly the right direction with the ability to listen on the right frequencies at the right time. Where this *could* be proof, should it really happen, I don't see where this is even remotely possible. And given we don't have much understanding of how RF energy flows though deep space, even if we did hear something, it's very likely we wouldn't notice it in the noise. It would be like trying to hear a pin drop on a train platform as the express was running through.
2.2. Another way we might get information about life on other planets is to observe the light spectrum reflected by or transmitted though the atmospheres of a planet of interest and look for things that only life would cause. This activity would be extremely hard and require very long observations of extremely distant objects as they orbit their suns. The only way I can imagine this working is to find a planet that is in the habitable zone and happens to have the right circumstances to allow life, but further, in order to observe it's spectrum, it will have to orbit on a plane that our solar system happens to be on, so we can observe the spectrum changes as the planet passes in front and behind it's star and calculate the differences. This will need to be done over a very long period of time because the portion of the spectrum we can observe from the planet will be TINY compared to the star and we will need to have many observations to get to a statistical assurance that we are not just seeing noise.
So, in short, Not only is alien life (Like ours) obviously going to be pretty rare because the circumstances that lead to it are pretty rare, the chances that we can observe anything approaching proof is going to be even more difficult... The chances of stumbling onto proof, even if we knew where and when to look for it, would be nearly unimaginable, but given that we don't have much clue where to start the search, and the classical "needle in a haystack" saying doesn't even begin to convey the difficulty of the task, I find this "investment" interesting, but pointless for it's stated goal. They will not find proof of life outside of our solar system.
But that's not to say there won't be good things that come of this... It just won't accomplish their stated goals..
I'm guessing you don't like to follow rules then...
What hams generally object to is somebody who refuses to learn and follow the rules..
That too... Don't worry, we got that covered...
All those 1970's disaster movies again? "The Towering Inferno", "Airport", "Airplane", "Godzilla", "The China Syndrome" and "Earthquake" must have just shown up on Netflix or something...
They are NOT documentaries, they are theatrical productions people!
No, it's not legal to just broadcast, identification or no... But in this case, the content was obviously NOT ham radio related, but more about a personal business venture or two. Well, at least that's what the FCC finally dinged him for (among other things).
In this case, the fella was automatically transmitting pre-recorded content at all hours and then couldn't (or wouldn't) prove that he actually had a real life control operator in the loop. Automatic station control is not allowed on the frequencies he used. He got further into trouble by not responding to the FCC's inquiries into his station's operation so they fined him $75K as I recall.
Let's see, 5.7 Million for a fleet of drones....
I'm just wondering if that includes OPERATING costs, licensing costs and maintenance? Yes? For HOW LONG?
What are the weather limitations? Wind speeds, visibility, rain, snow, ice?
I'm thinking it would be much cheaper to put up a couple of tethered balloons carrying some camera gear when the weather is good and go with that. I'm guessing it will be cheaper up front, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain... Plus, they'd be just about as functional in the same limitations as these drone thingies... Go low tech, when it does what you want. Simple is almost ALWAYS going to be cheaper...
Buy some real helicopters, then you can get humans there to do something about the problem. You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million.
5.7 million wouldn't buy you ONE reasonable sized, used, helicopter that was airworthy, much less a medevac equipped one.
I've had a FCC issued license for 30 years and I've used it for a "rag chew" on the local repeater from time to time, but I haven't a clue what "chew the carpet" means or what license the ARRL issues that gets you on a local repeater... Has the XYL been slapping you around too hard lately and you've lost your mind or is this some intentional QRM nonsense?
73's
1-watt, IIRC
Nope, 1-watt is generally way too much power for Part 15 limits, with a few exceptions you are going to be limited to 1/10th of a watt or less of drive power (not RF out, DC IN to the final amplifier). Actual transmit power is going to be somewhat less than the 0.1 Watt. Plus, there are field strength limits too, so you cannot just hook up a directional antenna (like a 26db Yagi) and stay under the field strength limits very easily.
I couldn't see how this would be legal. Operating a transmitter at 900mhz requires a license. You don't simply start transmitting without either using air ways that are open to usage ( Ham operator - still requires a license to operate) or that you own the frequencies. As 900mhz is mainly cellular I didn't believe that the article was real.
Actually, the FCC does issue blanket authorizations to operate on may frequencies though Part 15 (pretty much every frequency is fair game, with a few exceptions). Part 15 requires some pretty low maximum field strengths though and has some criteria for all electronic/electric devices that emit RF however it is the field strength limits that make this device impossible to be a part 15 device, which means you are going to have to go with one of the licensed services.
CB and FRS are out because encryption is not allowed there, nor is data. Ham bands might work but you would need to get a license (not hard, really) and encryption would be a big no no. Other licensed services would be expensive and generally would require a fixed operating point which make being stealthy impossible...
I'm with you, the device may have been real, but it wasn't legal by FCC rules in the USA (or the rest of the industrialized world for that matter). Importing the devices would be a serous problem too... I'm guessing they realized that this wouldn't go well for them on a number of fronts...