Only so long as you're not picky about details - like the difference between a technology that's barely been tested on the lab bench and one that's actually been prototyped and tested and ready for development into a flight article. Zubrin is very fuzzy on the difference, and treats the former as if it were the latter... resulting in some very optimistic budget and schedule assumptions.
he estimates a cost of 30 billion USD (which is peanuts when compared to other manned Mars missions projects [vide "90-day report", on the order of 450 billion USD]) for the first launch, with costs amortized over multiple launches.
Um... optimizing what over multiple launches? The costs of booster development? That's true of all boosters and not particularly notable. The costs of the mission? You can't "amortize" the costs of a mission across multiple launches because the total mission cost is the total mission cost, regardless of the number of launches. (Or, to put it another way, this sounds like more of Zubrin's fuzzy handwaving.)
I presumed optical since you specifically mentioned pictures and the Hubble. If you meant radio, we can and already do 'build' interferometric radio telescopes the size of the Earth - which is much larger than the moon. Going to the moon gains us nothing.
the construction and engineering requirements for the individual nodes of the array are not that different from what is currently in operation.
The mind boggles at the level of cluelessness involved in believing that the Lunar environment is "not that different" from the terrestrial one.
(With an aperature that size, the potential to directly image an exoplanetary system becomes plausible, as well as charting the local stellar neighborhood with previously impossible levels of detail.
So, now we're back to optical (which, as I said, isn't currently practical) even though you claimed you weren't talking about optical. You're not only clueless, you're stupid too - because you can't even keep track of what you're proposing.
Unlike an artificial satellite however, it only needs to be made ONCE.
Yeah, it's not like that huge array won't require staggering amounts of maintenance and support... oh, wait...
You have no clue what you're talking about - you're just slinging buzzwords around like a parrot.
For an idea to be practical.... it first has to be, well, practical. Which an optical interferometric telescope of that size, isn't.
Among other problems, it would be many orders of magnitude bigger than any such telescope currently in operation. (Currently, the largest such interferometric scope is only a couple of hundred meters across.) The engineering challenges involved in building the observation stations alone are staggering, let alone the interconnections between them.
they broke rules/regs then they get what they deserve.
from the article I saw earlier this morning, they're getting written reprimands and half their pay docked for two months. Not too harsh for what they did, their careers should be ok.
Yes, on the scale of military punishments, they got off fairly lightly. If they were "normal" sailors, it might set their next promotion back a couple of years. (Unless they're khaki's or up for khaki,in which case they're going to have really shine to overcome the NJP.)
But they aren't "normal" sailors. They're SEALs. Their careers are effectively over. They'll go to the back of line (and stay there) when it comes to good duty and good billets... They won't be trusted by their shipmates, and they'll be watched closely which means their evals will slip, damaging their chances for promotion. Nothing formal, nothing overt, it's just the way the game is played in the elite communities. (And back in my day, in submarines, someone who did something like this would regularly fall up ladders until they got the hint and turned in their dolphins.)
Sure there are some tactics that are quite clever and do fall outside the realm of common sense, but I see no evidence of these being given away in games like Medal of Honor.
Some of the cleverest tactics are the most subtle... Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
But I rather suspect you don't see them because you're a clueless git.
As I say it's our intel, our training, our combat experience, and our technology that makes special forces what they are. That's something you either can replicate or you can't, no amount of computer games or books are going to make up for it.
You can say that all you want... but you'd be wrong. You say that tactics "seem like plain common sense", but you have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight (but don't seem to realize that).
A tactic doesn't need to be something nobody else could think up - it just needs to be something that takes advantage of your technology, in ingrained in you through training, is based on experience. etc... it hangs together as an integrated structure. And thus what most people lacking experience and knowledge don't realize is that knowledge of an enemies tactics not only allows you to deduce the rest of the structure, it lets you figure out countermeasures.
(Why yes, I do have the relevant experience and knowledge... courtesy of a decade in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club.)
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and pretty much zero knowledge of the history of retail in the US. Get back to me when you obtain some reading comprehension, and learn the difference between relevant facts and clueless bias.
Jobs left the US because shareholder profits came to be considered much more important than paying employees enough to afford the products they made.
That's part of it - but not a large part. We've been importing cheap shit from overseas for the better part of a century now, long before the bean counters came to rule the corporations.
Jobs didn't leave because of unions, or OSHA, or the 1%, or bean counters in the boardroom - they left because Americans are cheap bastards. They left because the 98% by-and-large make their purchasing decisions based on the sticker price.
There's a reason why Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the US, and why practically every other retailer has all but bankrupted themselves trying to compete.
I personally have a hard time believing they were so detached from reality all the way through the campaign that they'd focus on inessential tasks like selecting a transition team early and preparing this mockup rather than focussing on the platform and their campaign.
Quite the contrary, planning ahead is one of the qualities you want in an elected official.
Nor necessarily were they 'focused' on selecting a team or preparing this website, that's what staff and advisers are for - so that multiple things can be handled in parallel.
These are servers. Making a quick-swap motherboard standard for them sounds like a win, but no reasonably priced competitive substance offers the strength and RF shielding of a steel box.
This... Maybe it's time to separate the case (which provides structural support and RF shielding) from the chassis (to which the electronic components are mounted).
They forgot one of the key things - both Tesla and SpaceX depend heavily on government money. He's got more in common with William Boeing than Steve Jobs.
One who actually knows something might ask, which type of longhouse? There were several, all designed for different purposes... But that same person (who isn't you) would be compelled to answer - "none of them were designed for collaboration". They were designed for community, which isn't the same thing.
When they decide to attack her on this front they pretty much mobilized a larger portion of the young voter demographic for her than she would of otherwise gotten.
[[Citation needed]]
Seriously, while this sounds "obviously true" to the/, demographic, the Streisand Effect has much less effect in real life than the amount it gets slung around on Slashdot might lead you to think. Especially since this emphatically isn't an example of the Effect - which is the backlash that (sometimes) occurs when someone actively tries to suppress information.
I was about to say, the idea of designing buildings for collaboration is a fairly old one as such things go. I remember reading about it back in the early/mid 90's.
But, Jobs' reality distortion field persists after his death... and now the idea will be embedded in the 'nets culture as Steve's.
Not me. I'm a programmer. Most humans have had a mom who, without any commercial "efficiency need", devoted years and years into raising a sensible human who is capable of responding to anything unexpected. A lot of programs do have a commercial "drive" that causes them to be released into the wild long before they are mature and up to the task they should be able to perform.
Acceptance testing with your life is just not, well, acceptable.
This.
Self driving cars are a foray into something never really seen before commercially - near or beyond Space Shuttle levels of reliability, in real time, operating a wide variety of hardware (makes and models of car), in a stunningly wide range of operating environments (weather and traffic conditions). I'm not filled with optimism.
And I bet most of those who contributed are among those that whine, gripe, and complain when yet Hollywood defaults to yet another remake, sequel, or formulaic movie or TV show... while demonstrating in abundance why the entertainment industry repeatedly does so.
They're trying to design a system of machines that a small, isolated group could conceivable build from the absolute bare minimum of available tools but with significant access to materials from an active industrial society.
There, fixed that for you - and pointed out the "analog hole" in their scheme. They concentrate on the tools, while handwaving away the materials.
More limited than a rover, but much less expensive, and a lot less that could go wrong....
Yes, (much, much) more limited than a rover, but no, not much less expensive in the end. You're talking a big and fairly capable mother platform to carry and communicate with more than one or two probes, and those don't come cheap. (Neither do the EDL systems for the probes.) And no, there isn't much less that could go wrong - each probe could go wrong, and you have a single point of failure in the mother platform.
So, for not much less money and roughly the same level of mission risk - rather than getting comprehensive science on a single location, you get pretty much useless individual and unrelated data points from a variety of locations.
"In the movies, a spacecraft launch is often accompanied by bombastic music and the seat-juddering bass of rockets thundering, with shots of flight controllers frantically mashing buttons intercut with shaky-cam special effects of the launch vehicle clawing its way skyward. I asked Sy about what a person actually experienced while sitting at a console during launch, and it turns out that reality, again, is a very different place from fiction."
The author should learn what he's talking about - the room usually shown during launch (particularly during Apollo 13) is the LCC, not MOCR. The LCC is located adjacent to the VAB at Cape Kennedy and controls the testing, checkout, launch, and flight of the vehicle until it clears the tower, at which point the MOCR takes over.
He's also seems unaware that there's any media other than mini-series and fiction... If you're really interested in the MOCR, and wish for a less slack-jawed account, try and find a copy of Murray & Cox's Apollo (sometimes subtitled "Race to the Moon"). (Hard copies are expensive and collectible sadly.) In 1994 was Apollo along with Lovell's Apollo 13 that first actually discussed the MOCR in detail and kicked off the modern wave of more serious and less starry-eyed books about the Apollo Program.
It looks like several were close together, while others parked a little bit away were unscathed. Perhaps one caught fire and that burnt adjacent cars?
Still, it's a previously unknown (or undisclosed) failure mode, and even if it's just one - it's too many. Various parts of the US do flood from time to time, and hybrids become common then fires like this could become common as well.
Nope. So long as it doesn't cross the line into harassment and remains on public property, what he's doing is completely legal. Photography and videography in public is protected under federal law.
Slashdot Mirror
Only so long as you're not picky about details - like the difference between a technology that's barely been tested on the lab bench and one that's actually been prototyped and tested and ready for development into a flight article. Zubrin is very fuzzy on the difference, and treats the former as if it were the latter... resulting in some very optimistic budget and schedule assumptions.
Um... optimizing what over multiple launches? The costs of booster development? That's true of all boosters and not particularly notable. The costs of the mission? You can't "amortize" the costs of a mission across multiple launches because the total mission cost is the total mission cost, regardless of the number of launches. (Or, to put it another way, this sounds like more of Zubrin's fuzzy handwaving.)
Etc... etc...
I presumed optical since you specifically mentioned pictures and the Hubble. If you meant radio, we can and already do 'build' interferometric radio telescopes the size of the Earth - which is much larger than the moon. Going to the moon gains us nothing.
The mind boggles at the level of cluelessness involved in believing that the Lunar environment is "not that different" from the terrestrial one.
So, now we're back to optical (which, as I said, isn't currently practical) even though you claimed you weren't talking about optical. You're not only clueless, you're stupid too - because you can't even keep track of what you're proposing.
Yeah, it's not like that huge array won't require staggering amounts of maintenance and support... oh, wait...
You have no clue what you're talking about - you're just slinging buzzwords around like a parrot.
For an idea to be practical.... it first has to be, well, practical. Which an optical interferometric telescope of that size, isn't.
Among other problems, it would be many orders of magnitude bigger than any such telescope currently in operation. (Currently, the largest such interferometric scope is only a couple of hundred meters across.) The engineering challenges involved in building the observation stations alone are staggering, let alone the interconnections between them.
Yes, on the scale of military punishments, they got off fairly lightly. If they were "normal" sailors, it might set their next promotion back a couple of years. (Unless they're khaki's or up for khaki,in which case they're going to have really shine to overcome the NJP.)
But they aren't "normal" sailors. They're SEALs. Their careers are effectively over. They'll go to the back of line (and stay there) when it comes to good duty and good billets... They won't be trusted by their shipmates, and they'll be watched closely which means their evals will slip, damaging their chances for promotion. Nothing formal, nothing overt, it's just the way the game is played in the elite communities. (And back in my day, in submarines, someone who did something like this would regularly fall up ladders until they got the hint and turned in their dolphins.)
Some of the cleverest tactics are the most subtle... Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
But I rather suspect you don't see them because you're a clueless git.
You can say that all you want... but you'd be wrong. You say that tactics "seem like plain common sense", but you have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight (but don't seem to realize that).
A tactic doesn't need to be something nobody else could think up - it just needs to be something that takes advantage of your technology, in ingrained in you through training, is based on experience. etc... it hangs together as an integrated structure. And thus what most people lacking experience and knowledge don't realize is that knowledge of an enemies tactics not only allows you to deduce the rest of the structure, it lets you figure out countermeasures.
(Why yes, I do have the relevant experience and knowledge... courtesy of a decade in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club.)
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and pretty much zero knowledge of the history of retail in the US. Get back to me when you obtain some reading comprehension, and learn the difference between relevant facts and clueless bias.
That's part of it - but not a large part. We've been importing cheap shit from overseas for the better part of a century now, long before the bean counters came to rule the corporations.
Jobs didn't leave because of unions, or OSHA, or the 1%, or bean counters in the boardroom - they left because Americans are cheap bastards. They left because the 98% by-and-large make their purchasing decisions based on the sticker price.
There's a reason why Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the US, and why practically every other retailer has all but bankrupted themselves trying to compete.
Quite the contrary, planning ahead is one of the qualities you want in an elected official.
Nor necessarily were they 'focused' on selecting a team or preparing this website, that's what staff and advisers are for - so that multiple things can be handled in parallel.
This... Maybe it's time to separate the case (which provides structural support and RF shielding) from the chassis (to which the electronic components are mounted).
An foundation that borders on being pro legalization, finds that that drugs have a positive influence... that's a real big surprise.
But I note, you don't seem to have a link to an actual study supporting your claim.
It bothers me deeply, but it doesn't surprise me.
They forgot one of the key things - both Tesla and SpaceX depend heavily on government money. He's got more in common with William Boeing than Steve Jobs.
In other words, you don't have any numbers or proof of any sort.
One who actually knows something might ask, which type of longhouse? There were several, all designed for different purposes... But that same person (who isn't you) would be compelled to answer - "none of them were designed for collaboration". They were designed for community, which isn't the same thing.
[[Citation needed]]
Seriously, while this sounds "obviously true" to the /, demographic, the Streisand Effect has much less effect in real life than the amount it gets slung around on Slashdot might lead you to think. Especially since this emphatically isn't an example of the Effect - which is the backlash that (sometimes) occurs when someone actively tries to suppress information.
So numbers or proof please.
I was about to say, the idea of designing buildings for collaboration is a fairly old one as such things go. I remember reading about it back in the early/mid 90's.
But, Jobs' reality distortion field persists after his death... and now the idea will be embedded in the 'nets culture as Steve's.
This.
Self driving cars are a foray into something never really seen before commercially - near or beyond Space Shuttle levels of reliability, in real time, operating a wide variety of hardware (makes and models of car), in a stunningly wide range of operating environments (weather and traffic conditions). I'm not filled with optimism.
And I bet most of those who contributed are among those that whine, gripe, and complain when yet Hollywood defaults to yet another remake, sequel, or formulaic movie or TV show... while demonstrating in abundance why the entertainment industry repeatedly does so.
There, fixed that for you - and pointed out the "analog hole" in their scheme. They concentrate on the tools, while handwaving away the materials.
If that's the case, show up in court and defend yourself. Duh.
Yes, (much, much) more limited than a rover, but no, not much less expensive in the end. You're talking a big and fairly capable mother platform to carry and communicate with more than one or two probes, and those don't come cheap. (Neither do the EDL systems for the probes.) And no, there isn't much less that could go wrong - each probe could go wrong, and you have a single point of failure in the mother platform.
So, for not much less money and roughly the same level of mission risk - rather than getting comprehensive science on a single location, you get pretty much useless individual and unrelated data points from a variety of locations.
From TFA:
"In the movies, a spacecraft launch is often accompanied by bombastic music and the seat-juddering bass of rockets thundering, with shots of flight controllers frantically mashing buttons intercut with shaky-cam special effects of the launch vehicle clawing its way skyward. I asked Sy about what a person actually experienced while sitting at a console during launch, and it turns out that reality, again, is a very different place from fiction."
The author should learn what he's talking about - the room usually shown during launch (particularly during Apollo 13) is the LCC, not MOCR. The LCC is located adjacent to the VAB at Cape Kennedy and controls the testing, checkout, launch, and flight of the vehicle until it clears the tower, at which point the MOCR takes over.
He's also seems unaware that there's any media other than mini-series and fiction... If you're really interested in the MOCR, and wish for a less slack-jawed account, try and find a copy of Murray & Cox's Apollo (sometimes subtitled "Race to the Moon"). (Hard copies are expensive and collectible sadly.) In 1994 was Apollo along with Lovell's Apollo 13 that first actually discussed the MOCR in detail and kicked off the modern wave of more serious and less starry-eyed books about the Apollo Program.
Still, it's a previously unknown (or undisclosed) failure mode, and even if it's just one - it's too many. Various parts of the US do flood from time to time, and hybrids become common then fires like this could become common as well.
Nope. So long as it doesn't cross the line into harassment and remains on public property, what he's doing is completely legal. Photography and videography in public is protected under federal law.