... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.
All power management features worked fine in Ubuntu on my laptop, until I did an upgrade. Now, after I close the lid, and reopen it, the screen flickers a few times, and then often the screen resolution is messed up.
Obviously you can't predict the exact ROI for a certain research program, but you'll still have to make a choice what you're going to do with a certain budget.
The ISS costs about 100x as much as the Spirit/Opportunity rovers on Mars, but I don't think it returned 100x as much in scientific or engineering value. In fact, I've heard more interesting stuff come out of the Mars rovers than from the entire operation of the ISS.
It's because computer power isn't the biggest hurdle in space travel. Cheap and effective propulsion is the problem, and we only have marginal improvements compared to 40 years ago.
But we're not talking about the age of the sun or the universe, but just a couple of years, maybe decades, at most. On that timescale, there are plenty of stable orbits.
A hundred years from now, your 'back to the land' peak oil fantasies will be looking as outdated as the Victorians who were worried that by 1950 there would be so many horses in London that the accumulated horse crap would fill the streets thirty feet deep.
And why is that ? We're already hitting peak oil, and we don't have plans for a realistic alternative. Even if we had some decent plans, it would take decades (and a lot of energy) to implement those.
Overall it should be the same. Sending the fuel first still requires the same total take-off mass as sending the fuel with the ship.
The advantage is in the logistics. You can send the fuel ahead of time, using a slow trajectory, and then launch your main ship on a faster trajectory. Or, when the fuel rocket fails, you can send another one before sending your main mission.
The idea is that you eat the chicken, and use the waste products for fuel. I don't think the plan is to set up chicken farms specifically to turn them into jet fuel.
Of course, the big question is how big the supply of waste products actually is. I would guess it's not all that big.
Just look for anything out of the ordinary, and once you find it, try to come up with an explanation. This way you'll not only find life (if it exist) but also other interesting phenomena.
Fusion power won't give you enough specific impulse to get to the stars on a reasonable amount of fuel and within a reasonable time.
Assume a target speed of 0.1c, and an exhaust velocity of 1000 km/s for a fusion rocket, then you get a fuel/payload ratio of 1/exp(-30000/1000) = 10 trillion, and it will take a lifetime to reach the nearest star.
So, you'll have to fly much slower, so 0.01c, which will bring the fuel/payload ratio down to a more manageable factor of 20. Of course, you'll want to slow down when you get there, which means a total delta-v of 0.02c, and your fuel/payload ratio goes back up to 400, and your travel time is measured in centuries for the nearest star.
Sounds interesting, but you'll still need to build a big railgun on the moon, as well as the probes you're going to send. It will take a while before you save enough on the launches to get that investment back.
There's a low-gravity, no-atmosphere location from where it's possible to launch missions to anywhere in the solar system much cheaper than from the earth.
How many launches does it take to amortize the cost of building a rocket factory on the moon ?
Other than vaporize when the Sun goes red-giant, you mean?
If you're afraid of that, there's no reason to start exploring space right now. We can wait a few million years, until humans are much more advanced, or extinct.
Slashdot Mirror
As your link says:
In contrast, current warming is global
All power management features worked fine in Ubuntu on my laptop, until I did an upgrade. Now, after I close the lid, and reopen it, the screen flickers a few times, and then often the screen resolution is messed up.
Better fill that cargo bay with fuel if you want to escape Earth's gravity well.
The Internet wasn't a product of the manned space program.
Obviously you can't predict the exact ROI for a certain research program, but you'll still have to make a choice what you're going to do with a certain budget.
The ISS costs about 100x as much as the Spirit/Opportunity rovers on Mars, but I don't think it returned 100x as much in scientific or engineering value. In fact, I've heard more interesting stuff come out of the Mars rovers than from the entire operation of the ISS.
I'm pretty sure all these products would have been invented/produced even without a manned space program, and on a lower budget.
The question is not if the manned space program has had benefits in other areas. That's quite obvious.
The question is: could you have spend the same money on something else, and get an even better return on your investment ?
For instance, we could have spend more on robotic missions, getting better robot technology as a result.
It's because computer power isn't the biggest hurdle in space travel. Cheap and effective propulsion is the problem, and we only have marginal improvements compared to 40 years ago.
WiFi hotspot data can be used to figure out where you are, for when you don't have GPS, or when the GPS doesn't have a satellite fix yet.
Apparently, they are planning a very long mission if they will have the time to grow apple trees on board.
But we're not talking about the age of the sun or the universe, but just a couple of years, maybe decades, at most. On that timescale, there are plenty of stable orbits.
Actually, if you put things in orbit, outside the atmosphere, they just "hang" there forever.
And why is that ? We're already hitting peak oil, and we don't have plans for a realistic alternative. Even if we had some decent plans, it would take decades (and a lot of energy) to implement those.
Overall it should be the same. Sending the fuel first still requires the same total take-off mass as sending the fuel with the ship.
The advantage is in the logistics. You can send the fuel ahead of time, using a slow trajectory, and then launch your main ship on a faster trajectory. Or, when the fuel rocket fails, you can send another one before sending your main mission.
The idea is that you eat the chicken, and use the waste products for fuel. I don't think the plan is to set up chicken farms specifically to turn them into jet fuel.
Of course, the big question is how big the supply of waste products actually is. I would guess it's not all that big.
Just look for anything out of the ordinary, and once you find it, try to come up with an explanation. This way you'll not only find life (if it exist) but also other interesting phenomena.
Since it has been shown that the tracking information exists, the message can't be true.
Fusion power won't give you enough specific impulse to get to the stars on a reasonable amount of fuel and within a reasonable time.
Assume a target speed of 0.1c, and an exhaust velocity of 1000 km/s for a fusion rocket, then you get a fuel/payload ratio of 1/exp(-30000/1000) = 10 trillion, and it will take a lifetime to reach the nearest star.
So, you'll have to fly much slower, so 0.01c, which will bring the fuel/payload ratio down to a more manageable factor of 20. Of course, you'll want to slow down when you get there, which means a total delta-v of 0.02c, and your fuel/payload ratio goes back up to 400, and your travel time is measured in centuries for the nearest star.
It's easier to put your sensitive data on a micro SD card, and hide that somewhere.
Sounds interesting, but you'll still need to build a big railgun on the moon, as well as the probes you're going to send. It will take a while before you save enough on the launches to get that investment back.
Depends on where you want to go. If you're trying to send a probe to Jupiter, you'll need a very big railgun to get the necessary speed.
Except that the closest star is something like 100 million times as far as the moon, and there's no guarantee the closest star is any good.
To visit the stars, we first need anti-matter based rocket propulsion, which we won't find on the moon.
How many launches does it take to amortize the cost of building a rocket factory on the moon ?
Less time and effort it would take to build a functional self-sufficient society on another planet.
If you're afraid of that, there's no reason to start exploring space right now. We can wait a few million years, until humans are much more advanced, or extinct.