Maybe it's time for thinking about mandatory destruction of satellites at the end of their useful life, instead of trying to make money out of launching things only...
Well, the big problem with your plan is that you're over a decade too late to propose/implement it. Debris reduction (I.E. minimizing the amount of stuff jettisoned) has been the standard since the 90's, as has been the requirement for satellite operators to place them in a parking orbit or deorbit them at end of life.
If you do a search there appears to be anywhere from half to two thirds of the data that are marked as proprietary data
Overall and despite the reported censoring of the best candidates
It's long been NASA policy that the PI and his team (the guys who've spent the last ___ years or decades bringing the instrument to fruition) get first crack at the data, which usually amounts to six months exclusive access. After that, the data is publicly released.
So it's neither censorship nor proprietary data in the usual senses either term are used in, so please be a bit careful in choosing your verbiage and making implications.
Which is it? That's a damm good question - which is why I asked the OP to clearly define the problem, "not enough scientists" or "not enough jobs for existing scientists".
And even if you have all that stuff - what about the tools to make the tools? Having all the documentation/drawings/plans/specifications/whatever to rebuild the reader for the media you've stored away is pretty much meaningless unless you can actually use all that data to actually build the reader.... And that equipment isn't trivial either.
And it goes like that right down the technological chain. As I told a misguided survivalist type friend of mine back during the run-up to Y2k: "Living off the grid is easy, living without FedEx is the real bitch".
Has anyone else noticed this kind of shift at their local haunts?
My local coffeeshop has seen a couple of new iPhones this last couple of weeks, but other than the four year old Nokia's they replaced the only other significant electronics noted there has been a GPS on it's way out the door on a geocaching expedition.
But then my local coffeeshop is my kitchen, where I can get better coffee far cheaper than any Starbucks and I have a view of my yard rather than concrete and asphalt.
But seriously, how great an extent of concern are you talking about? Tritium which we can already deal with safely, and the reactor housing which is a tiny scrap of highly radioactive waste which only needs to be stored safely for a short time (cus that's what 'highly radioactive' means)?
Tritium we already deal with safely in quantities far smaller than what we're talking about for a fusion economy - which also means starting or modifying additional conventional reactors to provide the tritium.
The reactor housing for a Tokomak style reactor is tons and tons of radioactive material, which first must be stored in place inside the reactor vessel for 12-20 years until it becomes 'cool' enough to handle and stored for tens to thousands of years before it completely 'cools' and is safe. (Because *that* is what 'highly radioactive' means.) Not to mention the material that becomes contaminated (and is replaced) during the course of ordinary reactor operations.
That's all great. Yes we have to make sure that's done right. It just seems very trivial in comparison to the real regulatory issues surrounding every other kind of large-scale power plant.
In the same way that getting shot with a.22 is 'trivial' compared to getting shot with a.45.
The tricky part is Comcast. Comcast decided to do their own 'digital conversion' as well. So far I have not been about to string the comcast converter with the universal converter. So I wither get OTA digital (which isn't possible is my area) or Comcast digital (which requires a digital TV to view).
My Tivo happily converts Comcast's digital signal to analog for my analog TV. If I hadn't had the Tivo, they offered me a (free!) digital-to-analog converter to go along with their box. So if you have a problem, it's your problem, not Comcast's.
But first you have to define a problem - all you've given so far amounts to "I've got a PHD and I have to work to find a slot? Horrors! They should be given out automagically and should offer research freedom!"
Seriously, I find a system that overproduces PhDs, so that jobs go to those who go the extra mile, to be a system that is working well. After, the system is designed to find and reward the best and most motivated (at least in theory), not to provide lifetime employment to everyone who shows up at the door.
Re:NASA shutting down manned exploration doesn't h
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
it more than paid for itself in the technical innovations it delivered
That's the claim that keeps getting made - but in fact, it's almost completely false. Apollo delivered few technical innovations, while capitalizing heavily on work already done. Or to put it in more modern terms - Apollo could spend a lot of money on specific developments because someone body else had already paid for the general research and development.
The advancements in integrated circuits and miniaturization alone probably paid for the Apollo program many times over.
Hardly. MIT based the Apollo guidance computers on the existing Polaris A-2 computer (Because Apollo didn't have time to develop one from scratch), which the Navy already considered obsolescent and was planning it's replacement. For every dollar that NASA spent on the relative handful of systems it built, the DoD spent ten dollars on the Polaris, Poseidon, and Minuteman -II and -III systems it was developing and building at the same time.
But ask first, *why* are there little-to-no civilian demands for the SRBs? Could it be that they are a marginally useful product with known flaws that are overpriced?
One could say that if one were biased and/or ignorant and whose main exposure to and knowledge of rocket science is limited to Estes catalogs and cheerleading alt.space blogs. (Which also likely means you're one of those who mistakenly believe that you can't shut down a solid.)
If one doesn't fall into that category, one would say that it's because the primary advantage of solids isn't one that the civilian space industry is willing to pay for. (Storeable liquids have huge problems as well, and they too are headed the way of the dodo bird.)
Falcon 9 had a fully new 2-stage rocket with all the pieces -- engines, avionics, control -- in place except a payload, and it achieved orbit to within a high degree of accuracy on its first flight.
Which, with the exception of the first flight bit, is pretty much a replication of what NASA did in 1964. Hysterical handwaving about the Frankenlauncher doesn't change that simple fact.
It's not just the government or business - it runs right through all of society.
What can I get cheapest and soonest with no other regards? Answered at the government and business levels you get policies and programs that shift with every election and a focus on the quarterly numbers. Answered at the individual level, you get Wal-Mart and industry headed offshore to Asia.
Management at ATK has been hinting that the company will virtually shut down without Ares or the shuttle. Memo from Free Enterprise to ATK management: if you depend on a single customer to sustain your company, you deserve to go bankrupt.
Well, while it's nice to be able to make a snide comment from the sidelines... as usual reality persists in being more complex than your copypasta/karmawhore reply can cover.
The problem is that the market for solid fuel rockets motors is fairly small and low margin, and government purchases represent the vast majority (90%+?) of said market (because there really isn't much or a commercial need for solids), and ATK is the only vendor left standing who can support that market. If ATK shuts down because of the loss of SRB contracts, it doesn't just mean the loss of jobs - it also represents the loss of critical expertise... Not in SRB production alone, but also for strategic missile production, air-to-air missile production, surface-to-air missile production, in fact virtually every solid rocket motor procured by the government for whatever purpose.
So if they go bankrupt, there's more at stake than you think.
There are certain products for which the government is the only purchaser because little-to-no civilian need exists for them - and it's hardly a given companies fault for existing to supply that market. We let such companies go out of business at our peril.
And really, here on Slashdot, folks like you are often the first to point and laugh when a company does try and expand past it's core competency - mostly because your understanding of business is limited to karmawhore copypasta.
And I bet you'd be among the first to complain if the government had interfered with the free market by not allowing ATK to absorb the others over the years. Or if the goverment had bent the law and let bids to less than the lowest bidder in order to keep key companies operating and competition alive because it cost you tax money.
In reality what we have here is a direct result of the free market you think so highly of - a microcosm of the big banks and the big auto companies that lead to our current problems.
I'm just an amateur geologist and if you had asked me I could have listed 3rd world countries with rich undeveloped minerals.
You're an amateur geologist who thinks he's far smarter than he actually is.
It only takes a geologist or a google to show this has been publicly known for decades. Google "Afgan mineral specimens" and add -ebay for better results. The gem minerals being sold from Afgan locales are primarily those found in lithium-rich pegmatite deposits.
The presence of mineral/gem samples from a given location means you have proof of the presence of mineral/gem samples. Nothing more, nothing less. Now the presence of such specimens means it's worth looking for the mother deposits, but it emphatically doesn't mean that such deposits are present in economically viable amounts/locations.
For instance if you google around you'll find all manner of gemstones listed as coming from Western North Carolina - but you won't find any major gem mining industry. Why? Because the deposits are thin and widely scattered, enough to support wildcat and hobbyist/tourist mines (and to produce the occasional world record emerald), but not enough to support full scale mining and extraction.
The problem is, that's the opposite of the default of how virtually every other piece of photo editing/management software out there works. To both a) not act in a standard manner *and* b) to fail to notify the user that you not acting in the standard manner is very bad behavior. (And one of the reasons I dropped Picasa.)
How worried am I about regulation of fusion reactors? None worried.
Then really, you don't even understand the issues. To the extent that the Greens are concerned about the regulation of fusion reactors (which isn't actually brought up in TFA), it has nothing to do with the reactions.
What the Greens are (quite properly) worried about is the handling of the (radioactive) tritium used as part of the fuel stream and the proper disposal of highly radioactive internals of the reactor after it's reached the end of its useful life.
That's how Constellation started out too... But, when it came time to move from paper to hardware is when the problems arose. But you handwave those away - mentioning two modifications to the ET, but failing to include them on the paper-to-real transition list. You also miss the change to the piping to connect the tanks to the SSME's (which isn't simple), designing a new nose (it isn't identical to the tail - the loads are not only completely different, they're experienced 180 degree's from each other), etc... etc...
But what is more annoying is that these senators are clinging to this expensive program when there are cheaper, safer alternatives that would save jobs
Constellation was cheap and safe back when it was a paper project too. They're always cheap and safe on paper.
Where things invariably get sticky is when they have to transition from paper to the real world - then all of the sudden, they aren't cheap or safe anymore.
With the niggling problem that Japan isn't actually planning on doing any of those things. They're bold architectural 'visions' by a private company - and it's not clear they plan on actually doing any of these things either. But it makes great PR either way.
If NASA continues only to accept projects that do not interest the general public they are going to completely lose funding within a few decades.
Which is sad really, because most of the interesting work is deadly effing dull. NOAA (for just one example) gets that kind of work funded, why can't NASA?
Isn't it wrong when copyrighted material is protected longer than classified government secrets...
If that were the case, you'd have a point. But while copyright has a finite length and automatically expires, classification is forever - unless and until it is specifically released.
Does anyone on/. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public.
That depends on your definition of interesting. There's lots of material that is still classified that would never make the evening news when it's released, but which would be of considerable interest to historians, economists, engineers, geeks, etc... etc...
Just because it doesn't cause a scandal doesn't mean it's not important or interesting.
Generally the microphones on those types of headsets are highly directional and have a bandpass filter to eliminate frequencies outside of human speech - so, no magic, but yes engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the big problem with your plan is that you're over a decade too late to propose/implement it. Debris reduction (I.E. minimizing the amount of stuff jettisoned) has been the standard since the 90's, as has been the requirement for satellite operators to place them in a parking orbit or deorbit them at end of life.
It's long been NASA policy that the PI and his team (the guys who've spent the last ___ years or decades bringing the instrument to fruition) get first crack at the data, which usually amounts to six months exclusive access. After that, the data is publicly released.
So it's neither censorship nor proprietary data in the usual senses either term are used in, so please be a bit careful in choosing your verbiage and making implications.
Which is it? That's a damm good question - which is why I asked the OP to clearly define the problem, "not enough scientists" or "not enough jobs for existing scientists".
And even if you have all that stuff - what about the tools to make the tools? Having all the documentation/drawings/plans/specifications/whatever to rebuild the reader for the media you've stored away is pretty much meaningless unless you can actually use all that data to actually build the reader.... And that equipment isn't trivial either.
And it goes like that right down the technological chain. As I told a misguided survivalist type friend of mine back during the run-up to Y2k: "Living off the grid is easy, living without FedEx is the real bitch".
My local coffeeshop has seen a couple of new iPhones this last couple of weeks, but other than the four year old Nokia's they replaced the only other significant electronics noted there has been a GPS on it's way out the door on a geocaching expedition.
But then my local coffeeshop is my kitchen, where I can get better coffee far cheaper than any Starbucks and I have a view of my yard rather than concrete and asphalt.
Tritium we already deal with safely in quantities far smaller than what we're talking about for a fusion economy - which also means starting or modifying additional conventional reactors to provide the tritium.
The reactor housing for a Tokomak style reactor is tons and tons of radioactive material, which first must be stored in place inside the reactor vessel for 12-20 years until it becomes 'cool' enough to handle and stored for tens to thousands of years before it completely 'cools' and is safe. (Because *that* is what 'highly radioactive' means.) Not to mention the material that becomes contaminated (and is replaced) during the course of ordinary reactor operations.
In the same way that getting shot with a .22 is 'trivial' compared to getting shot with a .45.
My Tivo happily converts Comcast's digital signal to analog for my analog TV. If I hadn't had the Tivo, they offered me a (free!) digital-to-analog converter to go along with their box. So if you have a problem, it's your problem, not Comcast's.
But first you have to define a problem - all you've given so far amounts to "I've got a PHD and I have to work to find a slot? Horrors! They should be given out automagically and should offer research freedom!"
Seriously, I find a system that overproduces PhDs, so that jobs go to those who go the extra mile, to be a system that is working well. After, the system is designed to find and reward the best and most motivated (at least in theory), not to provide lifetime employment to everyone who shows up at the door.
That's the claim that keeps getting made - but in fact, it's almost completely false. Apollo delivered few technical innovations, while capitalizing heavily on work already done. Or to put it in more modern terms - Apollo could spend a lot of money on specific developments because someone body else had already paid for the general research and development.
Hardly. MIT based the Apollo guidance computers on the existing Polaris A-2 computer (Because Apollo didn't have time to develop one from scratch), which the Navy already considered obsolescent and was planning it's replacement. For every dollar that NASA spent on the relative handful of systems it built, the DoD spent ten dollars on the Polaris, Poseidon, and Minuteman -II and -III systems it was developing and building at the same time.
And were the exception - not the rule.
One could say that if one were biased and/or ignorant and whose main exposure to and knowledge of rocket science is limited to Estes catalogs and cheerleading alt.space blogs. (Which also likely means you're one of those who mistakenly believe that you can't shut down a solid.)
If one doesn't fall into that category, one would say that it's because the primary advantage of solids isn't one that the civilian space industry is willing to pay for. (Storeable liquids have huge problems as well, and they too are headed the way of the dodo bird.)
Which, with the exception of the first flight bit, is pretty much a replication of what NASA did in 1964. Hysterical handwaving about the Frankenlauncher doesn't change that simple fact.
It's not just the government or business - it runs right through all of society.
What can I get cheapest and soonest with no other regards? Answered at the government and business levels you get policies and programs that shift with every election and a focus on the quarterly numbers. Answered at the individual level, you get Wal-Mart and industry headed offshore to Asia.
Well, while it's nice to be able to make a snide comment from the sidelines... as usual reality persists in being more complex than your copypasta/karmawhore reply can cover.
The problem is that the market for solid fuel rockets motors is fairly small and low margin, and government purchases represent the vast majority (90%+?) of said market (because there really isn't much or a commercial need for solids), and ATK is the only vendor left standing who can support that market. If ATK shuts down because of the loss of SRB contracts, it doesn't just mean the loss of jobs - it also represents the loss of critical expertise... Not in SRB production alone, but also for strategic missile production, air-to-air missile production, surface-to-air missile production, in fact virtually every solid rocket motor procured by the government for whatever purpose.
So if they go bankrupt, there's more at stake than you think.
There are certain products for which the government is the only purchaser because little-to-no civilian need exists for them - and it's hardly a given companies fault for existing to supply that market. We let such companies go out of business at our peril.
And really, here on Slashdot, folks like you are often the first to point and laugh when a company does try and expand past it's core competency - mostly because your understanding of business is limited to karmawhore copypasta.
And I bet you'd be among the first to complain if the government had interfered with the free market by not allowing ATK to absorb the others over the years. Or if the goverment had bent the law and let bids to less than the lowest bidder in order to keep key companies operating and competition alive because it cost you tax money.
In reality what we have here is a direct result of the free market you think so highly of - a microcosm of the big banks and the big auto companies that lead to our current problems.
You're an amateur geologist who thinks he's far smarter than he actually is.
The presence of mineral/gem samples from a given location means you have proof of the presence of mineral/gem samples. Nothing more, nothing less. Now the presence of such specimens means it's worth looking for the mother deposits, but it emphatically doesn't mean that such deposits are present in economically viable amounts/locations.
For instance if you google around you'll find all manner of gemstones listed as coming from Western North Carolina - but you won't find any major gem mining industry. Why? Because the deposits are thin and widely scattered, enough to support wildcat and hobbyist/tourist mines (and to produce the occasional world record emerald), but not enough to support full scale mining and extraction.
The problem is, that's the opposite of the default of how virtually every other piece of photo editing/management software out there works. To both a) not act in a standard manner *and* b) to fail to notify the user that you not acting in the standard manner is very bad behavior. (And one of the reasons I dropped Picasa.)
Doubly so when 90% of the hardware market is IBM's anyhow...
Then really, you don't even understand the issues. To the extent that the Greens are concerned about the regulation of fusion reactors (which isn't actually brought up in TFA), it has nothing to do with the reactions.
What the Greens are (quite properly) worried about is the handling of the (radioactive) tritium used as part of the fuel stream and the proper disposal of highly radioactive internals of the reactor after it's reached the end of its useful life.
That's how Constellation started out too... But, when it came time to move from paper to hardware is when the problems arose. But you handwave those away - mentioning two modifications to the ET, but failing to include them on the paper-to-real transition list. You also miss the change to the piping to connect the tanks to the SSME's (which isn't simple), designing a new nose (it isn't identical to the tail - the loads are not only completely different, they're experienced 180 degree's from each other), etc... etc...
Constellation was cheap and safe back when it was a paper project too. They're always cheap and safe on paper.
Where things invariably get sticky is when they have to transition from paper to the real world - then all of the sudden, they aren't cheap or safe anymore.
With the niggling problem that Japan isn't actually planning on doing any of those things. They're bold architectural 'visions' by a private company - and it's not clear they plan on actually doing any of these things either. But it makes great PR either way.
Which is sad really, because most of the interesting work is deadly effing dull. NOAA (for just one example) gets that kind of work funded, why can't NASA?
If that were the case, you'd have a point. But while copyright has a finite length and automatically expires, classification is forever - unless and until it is specifically released.
That depends on your definition of interesting. There's lots of material that is still classified that would never make the evening news when it's released, but which would be of considerable interest to historians, economists, engineers, geeks, etc... etc...
Just because it doesn't cause a scandal doesn't mean it's not important or interesting.
Generally the microphones on those types of headsets are highly directional and have a bandpass filter to eliminate frequencies outside of human speech - so, no magic, but yes engineering.