I doubt anyone has really tried. The 'challenge' is on an obscure website, the 'challenger' cannot clearly be indentified, and the bits about 'pseudo science merely being science a few years ahead of the mainstream' are just weird.
Alexander didn't "invent" anything. It's been known for decades that VLF waves will penetrate where other, higher, frequencies won't.
But VLF doesn't get used much in the real world because of it's low bandwidth, high power requirements, and the size and fragility of the antennas required.
The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product.
Sorry, but that the first part of that sentence is the typical excuse of the bad cook and the second part: Nobody intends to have a dry part of meat, so what's your point?
Sorry, but the first part it chapter and verse in the manual of a professional cook. A chuck is going to respond differently than a sirloin, and a round will respond differently from either. In each cut the proportions of muscle, fat, and connective tissue are different and each receives different amounts of exercise when the animal is alive. (And that culinary science 101 - about as basic as it gets. Why do you think charts and tables like the one found here exist?) And I agree, nobody intends to create a dry piece of meat, but many people do anyhow because they don't understand the difference between the cuts and the impact of different cooking methods.
I know from personal real experience of doing roasts and steaks -- for Christmas, for me, for friends, etc -- that your view is wrong and outdated. Look at the physics/chemistry behind it.
Outdated? You might pick up a copy of this book, which is standard textbook in the culinary industry, says exactly what I said, and was last updated just a couple of years ago. (Yeah, I've spent fifteen years semi professional studying the culinary arts - why do you ask?)
You on the other hand toss around terms that make you appear educated, but only to other members of the cargo cult.
The reason the meat appears to have 'lost' no juice is that you haven't produced any in the first place. The primary source of 'juice' isn't the water you expend so much effort in not losing, but is the collagen and other connective tissue in the roast, which doesn't start to melt until roughly 82 degrees.
No shit Sherlock? You act all so wisely, and don't even get, that this was the exact point I made? Are you really trying to "counter" me, by bringing up the samepoint? LOL. Why do you think I said 50-80 degrees, and not 50-98?
Reading comprehension - get some. Your method cannot lose juice - because juice was never created in the first place. You've cooked it too low, and now must replace the juice with gravy from a box or tin, which you wouldn't need if you'd done it right in the first place. Many uneducated people can't tell the difference because they've had it done right.
I've tried this, tested, and experimented to find the right timings and temperatures. So you can't physically be right, unless the meat i had on my own plate, lied to my eyes, my nose, my tongue, my teeth, and that of many friends of mine.
Your meat seems to be good because you artificially supply (from a box or tin) that which you failed to create by properly cooking the meat.
In conclusion: You just speak out of your ass, without any real practical experience to back it up!
Fifteen years of cooking and studying the culinary arts - and my practices are the exact same as you'll find in any decent or better restaurant. If I'm speaking 'out of my ass', then I'm in very good company.
Yes, I do. I see you continuing to insist that space be filled with drama and cliffhangers in order to keep up public interest, seemingly for the sheer sake of keeping up public interest.
Then you did misunderstand me.
No, I understood you quite clearly - it's you who didn't realize that your choices of examples unconsciously betrayed your bias. You're aware of the Hubble science because of all the pretty pictures, so it must be good. You're unaware of any ISS science, therefore it must bad. And since ISS is suspect, a moonbase must be suspect, therefore NASA explaining a simple experiment in simple terms must be 'talking down to people'.
Or maybe your argument just isn't as clear as you think it is.
but don't produce pretty pictures and thus fly under the public's collective radar. Can you tell me (without looking them up) what SOHO is? Ulysses? Gravity Probe B?
The public doesn't need to know every detail of every space program.
Or, in other words, no - you don't know what they are and what they do and therefore they are irrelevant to your argument. Which was precisely my point, you base your perceptions of the program completely on media coverage and since those rarely if ever feature in pretty pictures and glowing write ups you dismiss them.
What they need is on the off times that they do look at NASA, to be able to say, "Oh, good to know we aren't wasting our money. What they're doing is kind of cool."
In other words, filled with drama and cliffhangers so that people who don't understand the science get the feeling something "cool" is being done. Which is precisly how we got into the current mess in the first place - because "cool" is being overvalued.
What is NASA's purpose? Can you even say? How can you expect to win a grant from anyone if it isn't clear what you are trying to do?
Well, NASA isn't 'trying' to do anything. It's a huge organization with multiple centers doing multiple things. And, as I said, plenty of other science and exploration gets done without the public understanding what is being done and in most (I.E. virtually all) cases utterly unaware its even being done in the first place.
Do you see how it is? People aren't always going to pay attention, but at the times they do, they are going to want to feel like something is being accomplished
Yes, I do. I see you continuing to insist that space be filled with drama and cliffhangers in order to keep up public interest, seemingly for the sheer sake of keeping up public interest.
A prime example of this is your mention of Hubble, but failing to mention the many other scientific satellites that have clear direction and and produce excellent science... but don't produce pretty pictures and thus fly under the public's collective radar. Can you tell me (without looking them up) what SOHO is? Ulysses? Gravity Probe B?
You consistently confuse having clear direction with keeping up the public interest.
Duration is next to irrelevant by the way. Temperature is the only important thing. You can leave a steak in the oven at 50-60 degrees Celsius for 12 hours, and it will still be perfect!
Other than the fact that you are flirting with the upper edge of the 'danger zone' (that range of temperatures at which bacteria grow fastest), sure. You're also flirting with meat that will be extremely dry even though it appears to be in the 'medium' range, as those temperatures are sufficient for the water in the meat to depart, but insufficient to melt the fats and collagen/connective tissue.
Slow cooking is the new trend for the best cooks in the world. (Well actually it's not that new anymore.)
It sounds like you are talking about sous vide, which isn't slow cooking but is cooking at the intended final temperature until the meat reaches that temperature. (Slow cooking isn't actually a professional culinary term, though colloquial use is roughly analogous to what is professionally known as braising and is done at 80-100 degrees.)
The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product. A chuck is treated differently from the round which is treated differently from the sirloin. Roasting produces one result (depending on the cut you are using), braising a different result, browning yet another... etc. etc.
5. Notice that it has lost no juice. This is an indicator that you did it right. But since you can't make any gravy without that juice, you have to use something else.
It sounds like you are making a roast of some kind... (but I can't really tell as you've failed to specify the cut and intended final product), but you've badly botched the chemistry. The reason the meat appears to have 'lost' no juice is that you haven't produced any in the first place. The primary source of 'juice' isn't the water you expend so much effort in not losing, but is the collagen and other connective tissue in the roast, which doesn't start to melt until roughly 82 degrees. (Which is why a sirloin roast, high in fat but low in connective tissue, can be dry roasted and served rare, but chuck roasts which are filled with connective tissue are braised and always served well done.)
Further, you're cooking cycle [near freeze - browning - cooking at too low a temperature] is a method precisely designed to produce an outer layer of meat that is overcooked with the bulk of the interior badly undercooked.
Enjoy your 5/kg meat which tastes like >10/kg meat!
I can't think of a single cut of beef that would be 'improved' by your faulty method. From your description it sounds like you are covering the faults in your cooking method with store bought flavor additives rather than not inducing the fault in the first place.
So while the Japanese may find a way to rank their beef using IR, they are still stuck with the same old greasy, mushy slabs of fat.
It's sounds more like what you've had is Japanese beef that's been ill prepared. The heavily marbled Japanese beef is meant to be served thinly sliced rather that en slab as is American/European beef.
Good beef should be marbled. This gives it a good tenderness and provides flavor. However Japanese beef is all too often over-marbled leading to a greasy mess that tastes less like beef than a mouthful of fat.
An interesting claim considering that the marbling levels in American beef have been dropping for decades in response to customer demand for lower fat meats.
Even worse is American pork! I literally cannot cook from a 1970's cookbook without heavily modifying the preparation process and cooking times because there has been such a drop in fat levels and the pieces are so closely trimmed. This is why brining has become so popular, to replace the natural moisture and juices that have been bred/trimmed out of the meat.
I suspect the [American] fascination with Japanese beef comes from changes in our grading standards. Much of the beef graded Prime (top tier) today would have barely been Choice (second tier) forty or fifty years ago as beef is being bred for lower fat and slaughtered ever younger.
I am in favor of space research, but right now it has no real direction. Sending the shuttle into space to do more experiments of weightlessness on people is silly. We need to come up with a real reason for exploring space, something that will really capture people's imagination, we need to explain why it is possible, and then we need to design the path to reaching that goal. If we can't design the entire path because of unknowns, then we need to at least have the next step outlined clearly.
And concentration on propaganda value is exactly what created the expensive and unsustainable Apollo program, Shuttle program, and Constellation program.
What we need to do is start treating space like we do oceanographic research, geological research, Antarctic expeditions, etc., etc... That is, treat it as something that needs to be and then go ahead and do it rather than as Survivor In Space where there has to be a constant stream of cliffhangers and drama in order to keep the public interested.
We can't do real work [in space] if the money is being spent (as you propose) on Potemkin villages to 'capture peoples imagination'. We've tried that for the last fifty years, and the evidence is abundant that it simply doesn't work.
They're never going to get us into mars, because there's simply no profit in it.
Oh really? Because to me, Phobos and Deimos (Mars' moons) are little more than a few trillion tons of metal, ceramics, volatiles and a few million tons of precious metals sitting in a nice stable orbit over Mars. Just perfect to supply the Earth with some rare metals, the moon and LEO with volatiles and any space tourism around Mars.
Let's just put it this way: If there were a million ton gold asteroid in LEO, and setting aside the effects on price of dumping a million tons of any rare material on the market, you'd still go broke mining it.
And getting to LEO costs a fraction of what costs to reach Mars.
You woyuld have to have a profound lack of imagination to not see any "profit" in going to Mars and in space exploration in general. Resources, tourism, research etc. plenty of profit to be made, it's just a matter of building up the necessary technology and infrastructure.
The joker in the deck is your naive belief that "all that is needed" is to "build up up the necessary technology and infrastructure". That's going to be a horrendously expensive task, so expensive that it pretty much wipes all potential profit.
I follow Phil via twitter, he's pretty spot on about space and space exploration.
Well, mostly spot on. Like virtually every space advocate he's stuck in the "awe and lunge" model that has held us back for so long. We lunged for the Moon, and got the expensive and unsustainable Apollo program. We lunged for a reusable spacecraft, and got the expensive and unsustainable Shuttle program.
And lunging for commercial spaceflight will leave us in the same bucket - with an expensive and badly broken program.
The way to reduce costs and increase reliability in spaceflight are pretty much the same as they are in any other field of engineering... Lots of operational generations, lots of feedback, lots of experience. (Plus the boring bean counter engineering of analyzing costs and seeing where the money goes and how to trim those expenses.)
This kind of behavior was first demonstrated/modeled (AFAIK/IIRC) as part of the Tierra simulations almost twenty years ago. Though I don't have a reference to hand, I know it's been done in neural networks before too.
So other than the 'sizzle' (as opposed to 'steak') of doing it with robots, can anyone explain what is new here?
In the Challenger accident, management asked the engineers to support their position - since the data the engineers had been giving them said something very different. The engineers handwaved and waffled.
In the Columbia accident, the engineers didn't see the impact point in the launch video - but again they had vague feelings and hunches. Again, management asked them for supporting data since the engineers had been telling them how tough the leading edges were. This time, the engineers didn't bother to handwave and waffle, they just went back to their offices and sulked.
NASA Shuttle engineers have been covering their asses and telling management what it wants to hear for decades. The [now known to be flawed] safety calculations - came from the engineers. The [now known to be flawed] turnaround time estimations - came from the engineers. The engineers assured management that even though the basic design of SRB joint was flawed (the actual cause of the Challenger accident), it was safe to continue to fly... But management should cough up the dough for the engineers to design a replacement anyhow. (Which is why they had a new design ready to roll into production so fast.)
It's little wonder NASA management doesn't trust it's engineers - they have a proven track record of being less than fully honest.
There's no doubt in my mind that an alt.space company could one day be as big/professional as Boeing et. al., maybe one that exists now, maybe one not even founded yet... All I'm saying is that they aren't now and if they want to go to MIT, let them pay their own way.
Ok, that sounds good. Let's keep in mind though that currently, the US government is something like half the global space market. That means some access to US government contracts sooner or later unless the commercial side of the market expands a lot.
Cite? Seriously, my impression is that the government is a lot smaller.
As I see it, these companies show signs of extraordinary weakness even though they're in oligopolies with comfortable profit margins. If they had to beat real competition, I don't think some of these companies would survive.
Alt.space isn't going to provide much competition to ATK, whose primary market is the DoD. And if the Delta IV is screwed up, the evidence for it seriously lacking given it's steady launch rate. So your case doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, especially given the lack of ability for alt.space to compete for heavy launch contracts.
Right. As if our agricultural system wasn't strained now - we'll just quadruple the amount it must output. (And somehow replace all the petrochemicals used to do so normally.)
In addition to the radiation issues addressed by the other poster, you're also wrong about oil. If we could wave a magic wand and make all IC automobiles vanish while we slept, we'd wake up in a world still dependent on oil for many things - plastics, lubricants, chemical feed stocks for thousands of industrial processes.
The idea is that each fusion blast produces enough energy to fire the lasers for the next blast, plus some additional amount that can be used to do useful work.
Sure, it takes a constant stream of pellets as input, but a fission reactor uses fuel rods the same wayl.
So does a coal plant, or a gas plant, or a gas turbine plant, or an internal combustion plant...
The point here is that the high school students won't stay high school students.
I never said they would - I said they aren't now. Boeing, Lockmart, etc., may have started small, but they got big by doing things that people (not just the government) wanted to pay them for. They 'put themselves' through MIT. Alt.space, having just built their four bit computer and noting the governments need for a supercomputer, wants the government to change the rules and pay them to go to MIT and then give them a contract for a supercomputer with no questions asked.
There's no doubt in my mind that an alt.space company could one day be as big/professional as Boeing et. al., maybe one that exists now, maybe one not even founded yet... All I'm saying is that they aren't now and if they want to go to MIT, let them pay their own way.
I don't touch on it because it's utterly irrelevant. The big boys *are* competing on real contracts with real deliverables already.
Where's our sequel to the Space Shuttle? Up to and including Ares I, there's been two decades of failed projects with absolutely no progress towards a successor vehicle.
Ask NASA, or Congress, or the relevant Administrations. They're the ones who set the requirements and schedules, and write the checks.
If you happen to look at the history of those efforts, you'll see a lot of unprofessional and even incompetent behavior among the contractors (not just NASA and Congress). My view is that some of these players (particularly ATK Aerospace and Boeing) would have serious trouble competing for real space contracts.
Except that ATK and Boeing have been competing for and winning real space contracts for decades. That a contract failed to pan out doesn't make it 'not real'. You cannot legislate a program into success - we tried that with the Shuttle and look where it got us.
In comparison, SpaceX doesn't have the capabilities of a prime contractor, but they have developed three major engines and two rockets, while attempting 5 launches (with 2 successes) on half a billion dollars. NASA needs to exploit this sort of competence.
If SpaceX doesn't have the capabilities of a prime contractor - then there is nothing for NASA to exploit if what NASA needs is a prime contractor. I mean, it's amazing they cheaply built a four bit computer, but if NASA needs a supercomputer then NASA needs a supercomputer and no amount of high school students with experience in building a four bit computer are ever going to build one. (Not without the taxpayer paying to send them to MIT, which I object strenuously too.)
I've learned never to extrapolate from a single data point, yet you are claiming there'll be no change from the present (the single data point) in who NASA contracts to.
I've never claimed that. All I've done is failed to delude myself with handwaving like 'real contracts' and confusing high school students with MIT students.
In my defense, we have Orbital Sciences which transitioned over roughly two decades from a startup flying Pegasus to one of the big players.
And they did it the old fashioned way - by providing a product or service that people were willing to pay for.
Since there will be change, it makes sense for NASA to be proactive in developing a better, more competitive contractor environment. That means cultivating new contractors even if they aren't currently as profession or reliable as the big players. The trick is to throw them small contracts, such as has happened with COTS. The competent ones will rise.
If the game isn't rigged, then a competent one will rise - and the ones that didn't get the con
Because what the Rovers have accomplished in [roughly] 4000 rover days could have been done in [roughly] 20 man days and probably done better to boot.
Rovers haven't acomplished squat. Humans using rovers to manage the difficulties of space have accomplished quite a lot. Humans using spacesuits to do so have spent a lot more money, to much less effect.
The last statement is an opinion - not a fact. You need to learn the difference between the two. Even Steve Squyres, the guy in charge of the rovers, admits they are a very inefficient way of doing science.
Your argument would suggest exploration by humans who go there is much more effective than exploration by humans who operate remote probes. So why have the humans who operate remote probes accomplished lots of exploration on Mars with a tiny fraction of the budget of the humans who go there, who are skimming the atmosphere exploring a can they built?
That's a trivially easy question to answer, to someone actually informed rather than someone who just handwaving and parroting stuff he's heard elsewhere. (And the answer is: Because of the large upfront costs. Congress is scared of large upfront costs and prefers to do a tenth as much for the same amount of money but dribbled out over time so it looks like they aren't spending all that much. Congress behaves that way because of misinformed idiots like yourself.)
"In practice, the missions are almost always one shots, if a probe is lost it's game over for that mission"
So then you do another mission.
What part of 'game over' did you find so difficult to understand? Game over means they don't do that mission over. (Again, largely because of idiots like yourself who mistake their ill informed and ignorant spew for reasoned commentary.)
[snipped khallow's usual smoke, mirrors, and handwaving]
Wow, there's not really much after that. But I'll address one bit anyways.
Bearing in mind that the MIT computer science class used to be high school students.
True, but so what? They aren't high school students, period.
[end snip]
Not a 'little' biased, but completely biased. You've essentially repeated alt.space's propaganda pretty much word for word above.
I see you don't even touch on "cost plus" contracts. Let's see how profession the big boys are when they have to compete on real contracts with real deliverables.
I don't touch on it because it's utterly irrelevant. The big boys *are* competing on real contracts with real deliverables already.
Statements by Steven Squyres - you might recognize the name, he's the guy in charge of the rovers.
For the cost of getting a man to Mars and back how much research could we do into robotic exploration?
For the foreseeable future, manned exploration is going to be more cost efficient than robotic exploration. The big problem is the up front costs are higher.
That's the theory. In practice, the missions are almost always one shots, if a probe is lost it's game over for that mission. (The sole exception on Mars to date is the Phoenix lander, a cobbled together low budget 'replacement' for the lost Mars Polar Lander.)
Yeah and if the mission fails it's a pity and you move on. End of story.
Maybe you missed the part where I pointed out you don't move on - it's game over for the science involved in that mission.
If a human dies in space it's a national tragedy and a huge failure.
And, as we have done many times before, we recover and keep on keepin' on.
I hate to break it to everyone, but LEO Rocket Science is no longer, well, Rocket Science. Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10, working out of a small machine shop, using only about $2 million.
That's roughly as impressive as a high school electronics class building a four bit computer. I mean, it is impressive that they can do it at all, but comparing it to even a low end laptop is the ultimate in apples and oranges.
Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore (though, it's still dangerous)
Let's ask SpaceX how difficult it is to put anything in orbit, and then lets look at the track record of alt.space in putting people into orbit.
The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps. Rather, the "hobbyist" rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment.
In the same way the above mentioned high school class is ready to begin competing against an MIT computer science class to design and build a supercomputer.
To use the tired car analogy: NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2, all of which use the notorious "cost-plus" method of development. Instead, Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car, and the desired CAPABILITIES of it, but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs.
I hate to break it to you - but NASA *already* puts everything out to bid, even the construction of things it designs. The contracts keep going to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2 because they have the facilities and trained personnel to execute the contract. Alt.space - doesn't. And unless Congress changes the rules to relax the legal requirements surrounding technical ability to bid (technical as in technology and ability to execute the contract), things aren't going to change much.
As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (including the latest winner), I'm a bit biased here.
Not a 'little' biased, but completely biased. You've essentially repeated alt.space's propaganda pretty much word for word above.
Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.
Spoken like a true ignoramus. Who do you think developed the automobile? The airplane? The microchip? Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents? Who's creating newer, more efficient forms of power, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear? Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation?
Prior to WWII, private industry based on privately funded research. After WII, increasingly private industry based on government funded university research or goverment funded research.
In particular, aviation vastly benefited from the work of the NACA - a predecessor to NASA. Microchips benefited greatly from government investment in the form of the government pushing development and buying much of the early production for missile guidance systems.
Nuclear power got it's big boost, and continuing funding, for the Navy's nuclear power program. Solar cells, until very recently, depended largely on NASA funding for much of their research. Wind power also has gotten tremendous support from NASA and the DOE.
Most of the great advances in our history were created by private individuals and small companies
For most of history women were virtually property - and that too has changed in recent decades.
Slashdot Mirror
[Snippage everything that isn't handwaving, smokescreen, or utter nonsense.]
Wow. That leaves precisely nothing worth replying to. You started with a virtually incoherent argument, and have pretty much gone downhill from there.
I doubt anyone has really tried. The 'challenge' is on an obscure website, the 'challenger' cannot clearly be indentified, and the bits about 'pseudo science merely being science a few years ahead of the mainstream' are just weird.
Alexander didn't "invent" anything. It's been known for decades that VLF waves will penetrate where other, higher, frequencies won't.
But VLF doesn't get used much in the real world because of it's low bandwidth, high power requirements, and the size and fragility of the antennas required.
Sorry, but the first part it chapter and verse in the manual of a professional cook. A chuck is going to respond differently than a sirloin, and a round will respond differently from either. In each cut the proportions of muscle, fat, and connective tissue are different and each receives different amounts of exercise when the animal is alive. (And that culinary science 101 - about as basic as it gets. Why do you think charts and tables like the one found here exist?) And I agree, nobody intends to create a dry piece of meat, but many people do anyhow because they don't understand the difference between the cuts and the impact of different cooking methods.
Outdated? You might pick up a copy of this book, which is standard textbook in the culinary industry, says exactly what I said, and was last updated just a couple of years ago. (Yeah, I've spent fifteen years semi professional studying the culinary arts - why do you ask?)
You on the other hand toss around terms that make you appear educated, but only to other members of the cargo cult.
Reading comprehension - get some. Your method cannot lose juice - because juice was never created in the first place. You've cooked it too low, and now must replace the juice with gravy from a box or tin, which you wouldn't need if you'd done it right in the first place. Many uneducated people can't tell the difference because they've had it done right.
Your meat seems to be good because you artificially supply (from a box or tin) that which you failed to create by properly cooking the meat.
Fifteen years of cooking and studying the culinary arts - and my practices are the exact same as you'll find in any decent or better restaurant. If I'm speaking 'out of my ass', then I'm in very good company.
No, I understood you quite clearly - it's you who didn't realize that your choices of examples unconsciously betrayed your bias. You're aware of the Hubble science because of all the pretty pictures, so it must be good. You're unaware of any ISS science, therefore it must bad. And since ISS is suspect, a moonbase must be suspect, therefore NASA explaining a simple experiment in simple terms must be 'talking down to people'.
Or maybe your argument just isn't as clear as you think it is.
Or, in other words, no - you don't know what they are and what they do and therefore they are irrelevant to your argument. Which was precisely my point, you base your perceptions of the program completely on media coverage and since those rarely if ever feature in pretty pictures and glowing write ups you dismiss them.
In other words, filled with drama and cliffhangers so that people who don't understand the science get the feeling something "cool" is being done. Which is precisly how we got into the current mess in the first place - because "cool" is being overvalued.
Well, NASA isn't 'trying' to do anything. It's a huge organization with multiple centers doing multiple things. And, as I said, plenty of other science and exploration gets done without the public understanding what is being done and in most (I.E. virtually all) cases utterly unaware its even being done in the first place.
Yes, I do. I see you continuing to insist that space be filled with drama and cliffhangers in order to keep up public interest, seemingly for the sheer sake of keeping up public interest.
A prime example of this is your mention of Hubble, but failing to mention the many other scientific satellites that have clear direction and and produce excellent science... but don't produce pretty pictures and thus fly under the public's collective radar. Can you tell me (without looking them up) what SOHO is? Ulysses? Gravity Probe B?
You consistently confuse having clear direction with keeping up the public interest.
Other than the fact that you are flirting with the upper edge of the 'danger zone' (that range of temperatures at which bacteria grow fastest), sure. You're also flirting with meat that will be extremely dry even though it appears to be in the 'medium' range, as those temperatures are sufficient for the water in the meat to depart, but insufficient to melt the fats and collagen/connective tissue.
It sounds like you are talking about sous vide, which isn't slow cooking but is cooking at the intended final temperature until the meat reaches that temperature. (Slow cooking isn't actually a professional culinary term, though colloquial use is roughly analogous to what is professionally known as braising and is done at 80-100 degrees.)
The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product. A chuck is treated differently from the round which is treated differently from the sirloin. Roasting produces one result (depending on the cut you are using), braising a different result, browning yet another... etc. etc.
It sounds like you are making a roast of some kind... (but I can't really tell as you've failed to specify the cut and intended final product), but you've badly botched the chemistry. The reason the meat appears to have 'lost' no juice is that you haven't produced any in the first place. The primary source of 'juice' isn't the water you expend so much effort in not losing, but is the collagen and other connective tissue in the roast, which doesn't start to melt until roughly 82 degrees. (Which is why a sirloin roast, high in fat but low in connective tissue, can be dry roasted and served rare, but chuck roasts which are filled with connective tissue are braised and always served well done.)
Further, you're cooking cycle [near freeze - browning - cooking at too low a temperature] is a method precisely designed to produce an outer layer of meat that is overcooked with the bulk of the interior badly undercooked.
I can't think of a single cut of beef that would be 'improved' by your faulty method. From your description it sounds like you are covering the faults in your cooking method with store bought flavor additives rather than not inducing the fault in the first place.
It's sounds more like what you've had is Japanese beef that's been ill prepared. The heavily marbled Japanese beef is meant to be served thinly sliced rather that en slab as is American/European beef.
An interesting claim considering that the marbling levels in American beef have been dropping for decades in response to customer demand for lower fat meats.
Even worse is American pork! I literally cannot cook from a 1970's cookbook without heavily modifying the preparation process and cooking times because there has been such a drop in fat levels and the pieces are so closely trimmed. This is why brining has become so popular, to replace the natural moisture and juices that have been bred/trimmed out of the meat.
I suspect the [American] fascination with Japanese beef comes from changes in our grading standards. Much of the beef graded Prime (top tier) today would have barely been Choice (second tier) forty or fifty years ago as beef is being bred for lower fat and slaughtered ever younger.
And concentration on propaganda value is exactly what created the expensive and unsustainable Apollo program, Shuttle program, and Constellation program.
What we need to do is start treating space like we do oceanographic research, geological research, Antarctic expeditions, etc., etc... That is, treat it as something that needs to be and then go ahead and do it rather than as Survivor In Space where there has to be a constant stream of cliffhangers and drama in order to keep the public interested.
We can't do real work [in space] if the money is being spent (as you propose) on Potemkin villages to 'capture peoples imagination'. We've tried that for the last fifty years, and the evidence is abundant that it simply doesn't work.
Let's just put it this way: If there were a million ton gold asteroid in LEO, and setting aside the effects on price of dumping a million tons of any rare material on the market, you'd still go broke mining it.
And getting to LEO costs a fraction of what costs to reach Mars.
The joker in the deck is your naive belief that "all that is needed" is to "build up up the necessary technology and infrastructure". That's going to be a horrendously expensive task, so expensive that it pretty much wipes all potential profit.
Well, mostly spot on. Like virtually every space advocate he's stuck in the "awe and lunge" model that has held us back for so long. We lunged for the Moon, and got the expensive and unsustainable Apollo program. We lunged for a reusable spacecraft, and got the expensive and unsustainable Shuttle program.
And lunging for commercial spaceflight will leave us in the same bucket - with an expensive and badly broken program.
The way to reduce costs and increase reliability in spaceflight are pretty much the same as they are in any other field of engineering... Lots of operational generations, lots of feedback, lots of experience. (Plus the boring bean counter engineering of analyzing costs and seeing where the money goes and how to trim those expenses.)
This kind of behavior was first demonstrated/modeled (AFAIK/IIRC) as part of the Tierra simulations almost twenty years ago. Though I don't have a reference to hand, I know it's been done in neural networks before too.
So other than the 'sizzle' (as opposed to 'steak') of doing it with robots, can anyone explain what is new here?
ROTFLMAO. You really are deluded.
In the Challenger accident, management asked the engineers to support their position - since the data the engineers had been giving them said something very different. The engineers handwaved and waffled.
In the Columbia accident, the engineers didn't see the impact point in the launch video - but again they had vague feelings and hunches. Again, management asked them for supporting data since the engineers had been telling them how tough the leading edges were. This time, the engineers didn't bother to handwave and waffle, they just went back to their offices and sulked.
NASA Shuttle engineers have been covering their asses and telling management what it wants to hear for decades. The [now known to be flawed] safety calculations - came from the engineers. The [now known to be flawed] turnaround time estimations - came from the engineers. The engineers assured management that even though the basic design of SRB joint was flawed (the actual cause of the Challenger accident), it was safe to continue to fly... But management should cough up the dough for the engineers to design a replacement anyhow. (Which is why they had a new design ready to roll into production so fast.)
It's little wonder NASA management doesn't trust it's engineers - they have a proven track record of being less than fully honest.
In other words, no. You can't actually support any of your positions with facts, just suppositions and feelings.
Cite? Seriously, my impression is that the government is a lot smaller.
Alt.space isn't going to provide much competition to ATK, whose primary market is the DoD. And if the Delta IV is screwed up, the evidence for it seriously lacking given it's steady launch rate. So your case doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, especially given the lack of ability for alt.space to compete for heavy launch contracts.
Right. As if our agricultural system wasn't strained now - we'll just quadruple the amount it must output. (And somehow replace all the petrochemicals used to do so normally.)
In addition to the radiation issues addressed by the other poster, you're also wrong about oil. If we could wave a magic wand and make all IC automobiles vanish while we slept, we'd wake up in a world still dependent on oil for many things - plastics, lubricants, chemical feed stocks for thousands of industrial processes.
So does a coal plant, or a gas plant, or a gas turbine plant, or an internal combustion plant...
I never said they would - I said they aren't now. Boeing, Lockmart, etc., may have started small, but they got big by doing things that people (not just the government) wanted to pay them for. They 'put themselves' through MIT. Alt.space, having just built their four bit computer and noting the governments need for a supercomputer, wants the government to change the rules and pay them to go to MIT and then give them a contract for a supercomputer with no questions asked.
There's no doubt in my mind that an alt.space company could one day be as big/professional as Boeing et. al., maybe one that exists now, maybe one not even founded yet... All I'm saying is that they aren't now and if they want to go to MIT, let them pay their own way.
Ask NASA, or Congress, or the relevant Administrations. They're the ones who set the requirements and schedules, and write the checks.
Except that ATK and Boeing have been competing for and winning real space contracts for decades. That a contract failed to pan out doesn't make it 'not real'. You cannot legislate a program into success - we tried that with the Shuttle and look where it got us.
If SpaceX doesn't have the capabilities of a prime contractor - then there is nothing for NASA to exploit if what NASA needs is a prime contractor. I mean, it's amazing they cheaply built a four bit computer, but if NASA needs a supercomputer then NASA needs a supercomputer and no amount of high school students with experience in building a four bit computer are ever going to build one. (Not without the taxpayer paying to send them to MIT, which I object strenuously too.)
I've never claimed that. All I've done is failed to delude myself with handwaving like 'real contracts' and confusing high school students with MIT students.
And they did it the old fashioned way - by providing a product or service that people were willing to pay for.
If the game isn't rigged, then a competent one will rise - and the ones that didn't get the con
The last statement is an opinion - not a fact. You need to learn the difference between the two. Even Steve Squyres, the guy in charge of the rovers, admits they are a very inefficient way of doing science.
That's a trivially easy question to answer, to someone actually informed rather than someone who just handwaving and parroting stuff he's heard elsewhere. (And the answer is: Because of the large upfront costs. Congress is scared of large upfront costs and prefers to do a tenth as much for the same amount of money but dribbled out over time so it looks like they aren't spending all that much. Congress behaves that way because of misinformed idiots like yourself.)
What part of 'game over' did you find so difficult to understand? Game over means they don't do that mission over. (Again, largely because of idiots like yourself who mistake their ill informed and ignorant spew for reasoned commentary.)
[snipped khallow's usual smoke, mirrors, and handwaving]
Wow, there's not really much after that. But I'll address one bit anyways.
True, but so what? They aren't high school students, period.
[end snip]
I don't touch on it because it's utterly irrelevant. The big boys *are* competing on real contracts with real deliverables already.
Statements by Steven Squyres - you might recognize the name, he's the guy in charge of the rovers.
For the foreseeable future, manned exploration is going to be more cost efficient than robotic exploration. The big problem is the up front costs are higher.
Maybe you missed the part where I pointed out you don't move on - it's game over for the science involved in that mission.
And, as we have done many times before, we recover and keep on keepin' on.
That's roughly as impressive as a high school electronics class building a four bit computer. I mean, it is impressive that they can do it at all, but comparing it to even a low end laptop is the ultimate in apples and oranges.
Let's ask SpaceX how difficult it is to put anything in orbit, and then lets look at the track record of alt.space in putting people into orbit.
In the same way the above mentioned high school class is ready to begin competing against an MIT computer science class to design and build a supercomputer.
I hate to break it to you - but NASA *already* puts everything out to bid, even the construction of things it designs. The contracts keep going to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2 because they have the facilities and trained personnel to execute the contract. Alt.space - doesn't. And unless Congress changes the rules to relax the legal requirements surrounding technical ability to bid (technical as in technology and ability to execute the contract), things aren't going to change much.
Not a 'little' biased, but completely biased. You've essentially repeated alt.space's propaganda pretty much word for word above.
Prior to WWII, private industry based on privately funded research. After WII, increasingly private industry based on government funded university research or goverment funded research.
In particular, aviation vastly benefited from the work of the NACA - a predecessor to NASA. Microchips benefited greatly from government investment in the form of the government pushing development and buying much of the early production for missile guidance systems.
Nuclear power got it's big boost, and continuing funding, for the Navy's nuclear power program. Solar cells, until very recently, depended largely on NASA funding for much of their research. Wind power also has gotten tremendous support from NASA and the DOE.
For most of history women were virtually property - and that too has changed in recent decades.