Actually, the Apollo project was stopped in 1967-68. Before we even landed on the moon Saturn V production had been capped and four of the planned landings canceled.
The idea behind balloon launched rockets has nothing to do with escape velocity/gravity. It has to do with aerodynamic drag. Aerodynamic drag plays a big role in eating up launch fuel at lower altitudes where the atmosphere is dense. A balloon launch bypasses that drag with a low cost, and disposable, balloon filled with hydrogen/helium without having to use expensive/heavy rocket fuel.
There's two problems with this scheme
The Hindenburg would just barely be able to lift John Glenn's Atlas booster.
A disposable Hindenburg would cost tens of millions of dollars - while the few thousand gallons of fuel and oxidizer it replaced would cost a few thousand dollars.
Given that a human geologist can accomplish in a month what it has take both Spirit and Opportunity years to do...
That's mainly because you're presuming that the humans will bring along an entire geology lab and a base station to do their work.
That's an assumption on your part - and an utterly and laughably incorrect one. All I'm presuming is the geologist will have a vehicle and the same instrument suite the MER's do. The geologist won't spend days deciding how to move two meters, and can make decisions based on a few moments observations that takes the rovers hours of imaging, more hours of processing and transmission, more hours of writing command sequences, more hours of processing and transmission...
So now, you're changing your position - rather than sending people to supervise robots, we'll not send people at all?
If you want to talk orders of magnitude - compare the total cost of the Rovers to date against the cost of a month of human exploration. You'll find the difference less than you expect, especially when you consider the actual length of a human expedition will (because of orbital mechanics) be a year or so, with multiple geologists, for very little more than that notional month. Then consider the vastly enhanced science return.
Robotic exploration is how we'll explore Mars, even if we put people there.
Given that a human geologist can accomplish in a month what it has take both Spirit and Opportunity years to do... Why would use robots when we send people?
Human life, sent millions and millions of miles, is too precious to risk on non-Earth spelunking.
What codswallop. Human life precious? There's billions of us, and many more each day, 99.99% of which accomplish little more than 'birth, school, work, death'. A single life risked in remote exploration accomplishes more than all those 99.99% combined.
My question is, why is the Bureau of Land Management allowing *anyone* to disturb the system if it's so fragile? Why not send light-weight robots that have been disinfected? It's not like we don't have the technology.
Actually, we don't have the technology - robots capable of exploration are heavy and have short operating times (think tens of yards) without being even larger and heavier to carry sufficient batteries or dragging an umbilical cable behind to provide power.
It's like Wikipedia but without the open collaboration which made Wikipedia successful.
It's also a Wikipedia without editors. And I mean real editors, the kind of people who turn the gibberish that some brilliant professors reduce their prose to after they get tenure and stop giving a shit into something resembling standard formal English.
Yes, by and large the editors do a wonderful job of creating something that 'resembles' standard formal English. Sometimes the resemblance is weak, sometimes average, but its (almost) always there.
Seriously, have you even actually read Wikipedia? The average article is full of convoluted sentences, odd paragraph structure, etc. etc. (Leaving aside the poor structure of the overall article.) Your much vaunted editors don't do that good of a job.
I see, you are confusing gross visual effects with the power of the blast. (Hint: Water is more dense than air, dirt or rock is more dense than water.)
Google the Orion project; space launches with nukes, payloads that could carry the entire ISS up in one go, along with a few spares, large enough to make inter-planetary colonization realistic, and it's not science fiction.
The problem is the fallout from the bombs of course.
Well, Orion becoming practical was always predicated on cheap, clean (nearly pure fusion) bombs becoming practical - which never happened. The 'cheap' part is important too, as with the current cost of the bombs Orion is so expensive per lb as to make the Shuttle look like a bargain by comparison.
On Earth nuclear explosions have a big blast because their is plenty of atmosphere to absorb the gamma, radiate less energetic photons, and expand, a nuclear burst in the water is much less effective blast-wise than an airburst
What, you don't think water absorbs the energies from the bomb (gamma and x-rays) in the same way that the atmosphere does?
My parents took away my 2400 baud modem when I was a kid, so I spent my allowance on a 9600 baud modem without telling them and only used it when they were asleep or out of the house. Kids are a lot smarter than legislators give them credit for.
Or, your parents were really stupid and you are only bright by comparison.
We've been at it for decades and the latest and greatest the Ruskies and Americans come up with looks like pretty much the same shit we've been doing for years
I wouldn't expect it to look like anything else. Like airliners or submarines the design is driven mainly by aerodynamics (hydrodynamics) and engineering constraints, not by the need to 'look' different in order to be fashionable or meet the expectations of someone who expects it to look.. I don't know, modern? Science fiction-y?
You start with the assumption it should be widespread, and are disappointed because it is not. Which leads to the question, what leads you to that assumption?
When the Shuttle was grounded after Columbia, it was the Russians who kept the project alive. It was a close-run thing, though; the Shuttle's cargo capacity dwarfs Progress, and it was a major loss. Hence the development of independent cargo ships by ESA and Japan.
That's only 'mostly correct'. The ATV (ESA) and HTV (JAXA) cargo craft predate the loss of Columbia by years - they've been on the drawing boards since the early/mid 1990's. ATV was supposed to have first flown in, IIRC, 2003. HTV was supposed to first fly in 2001.
These are much bigger than Soyuz, and also divide the labour three ways instead of relying on Russia alone to produce enough rockets.
Again, only mostly correct. While ATV/HTV can carry far more cargo that Soyuz, they can't ferry passengers. For that matter, your average Mini Cooper has a higher cargo capacity than Soyuz. (OK, I exaggerate. But not by much.)
Ah yes, when all else fails invoke conspiracy theories and tinfoil hat handwavings. Even when the company in question admits to wrongdoing - it's still the goverments fault.
The US government (actually the Federal Reserve but by extension their lackeys in the government) is terrified of "competing currencies."
Setting aside your use of the loaded word 'lackeys', you ignore the fact that competing currencies are against the law - and have been since almost the birth of the Republic. (And if you study banking history, you'll find many good reasons why.)
That being said - there are dozens of alternative currencies currently in use within the US operating completely without government interference... Primarily because they are following the law.
Probably the more interesting thing to note here is that JAXA even *has* a spacecraft for something of that sort.
Well, only sorta. The HTV is untested and so is the H-IIB booster that will be used to place it in orbit.
The spacecraft in question, H-II, was only announced recently in 2008
The spacecraft in question (the HTV) has been on the drawing boards for well over a decade - originally scheduled to enter service in 2001, it has been much delayed by lack of funding by JAXA and ongoing problems with the H-II booster.
And what happened to Russia? I thought they were a huge part of the ISS, and just recently the RSA received a lot more interest from their government if I recall correctly, so why aren't we poking sticks at them?
Japan is one of the major partners as well... That being said, we are poking sticks at the Russians but they can barely meet their own commitments for the foreseeable future. (The Soyuz and Progress capsules are built JIT and the components thereof in small intermittent lots - which makes it very difficult to increase the production rate.)
Even if you can't agree with his past and his wealth, you can't disagree with the fact that this guy is stepping up and attempting to _do someting_ about the problem.
Of course, you and Mr, Pickens define the problem differently - you define it as lack of energy and/or transmission capability.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Apollo project was stopped in 1967-68. Before we even landed on the moon Saturn V production had been capped and four of the planned landings canceled.
There's two problems with this scheme
The problem is, they aren't relatively cheap. You pay a fraction of the cost, and you get less than a fraction of the science.
That's an assumption on your part - and an utterly and laughably incorrect one. All I'm presuming is the geologist will have a vehicle and the same instrument suite the MER's do. The geologist won't spend days deciding how to move two meters, and can make decisions based on a few moments observations that takes the rovers hours of imaging, more hours of processing and transmission, more hours of writing command sequences, more hours of processing and transmission...
So now, you're changing your position - rather than sending people to supervise robots, we'll not send people at all?
If you want to talk orders of magnitude - compare the total cost of the Rovers to date against the cost of a month of human exploration. You'll find the difference less than you expect, especially when you consider the actual length of a human expedition will (because of orbital mechanics) be a year or so, with multiple geologists, for very little more than that notional month. Then consider the vastly enhanced science return.
Given that a human geologist can accomplish in a month what it has take both Spirit and Opportunity years to do... Why would use robots when we send people?
What codswallop. Human life precious? There's billions of us, and many more each day, 99.99% of which accomplish little more than 'birth, school, work, death'. A single life risked in remote exploration accomplishes more than all those 99.99% combined.
Actually, we don't have the technology - robots capable of exploration are heavy and have short operating times (think tens of yards) without being even larger and heavier to carry sufficient batteries or dragging an umbilical cable behind to provide power.
And that's the problem - to some extent they do both, to the point where the game is recognizably Scrabble with the serial numbers badly filed off.
Yes, by and large the editors do a wonderful job of creating something that 'resembles' standard formal English. Sometimes the resemblance is weak, sometimes average, but its (almost) always there.
Seriously, have you even actually read Wikipedia? The average article is full of convoluted sentences, odd paragraph structure, etc. etc. (Leaving aside the poor structure of the overall article.) Your much vaunted editors don't do that good of a job.
I see, you are confusing gross visual effects with the power of the blast. (Hint: Water is more dense than air, dirt or rock is more dense than water.)
I suspect he's confusing the visual effect with the blast effectiveness.
Well, Orion becoming practical was always predicated on cheap, clean (nearly pure fusion) bombs becoming practical - which never happened. The 'cheap' part is important too, as with the current cost of the bombs Orion is so expensive per lb as to make the Shuttle look like a bargain by comparison.
What, you don't think water absorbs the energies from the bomb (gamma and x-rays) in the same way that the atmosphere does?
That's why Orion pulse units have focusing systems to focus more of the blast in the direction of the vehicle being propelled.
Nope, pusher plates mounted on shock absorbers absorb the blast and deliver it smoothly to the main vehicle.
Stop tossing bombs, use ordinary RCS systems to turn the vehicle, start tossing bombs again.
Yeah, and all managers are stupid and all corporations are evil.
Aren't stereotypes fun?
Because Slashdotters have tunnel vision and little desire to venture beyond their own turf.
Or, your parents were really stupid and you are only bright by comparison.
I wouldn't expect it to look like anything else. Like airliners or submarines the design is driven mainly by aerodynamics (hydrodynamics) and engineering constraints, not by the need to 'look' different in order to be fashionable or meet the expectations of someone who expects it to look.. I don't know, modern? Science fiction-y?
You start with the assumption it should be widespread, and are disappointed because it is not. Which leads to the question, what leads you to that assumption?
That's only 'mostly correct'. The ATV (ESA) and HTV (JAXA) cargo craft predate the loss of Columbia by years - they've been on the drawing boards since the early/mid 1990's. ATV was supposed to have first flown in, IIRC, 2003. HTV was supposed to first fly in 2001.
Again, only mostly correct. While ATV/HTV can carry far more cargo that Soyuz, they can't ferry passengers. For that matter, your average Mini Cooper has a higher cargo capacity than Soyuz. (OK, I exaggerate. But not by much.)
Ah yes, when all else fails invoke conspiracy theories and tinfoil hat handwavings. Even when the company in question admits to wrongdoing - it's still the goverments fault.
Setting aside your use of the loaded word 'lackeys', you ignore the fact that competing currencies are against the law - and have been since almost the birth of the Republic. (And if you study banking history, you'll find many good reasons why.)
That being said - there are dozens of alternative currencies currently in use within the US operating completely without government interference... Primarily because they are following the law.
Well, only sorta. The HTV is untested and so is the H-IIB booster that will be used to place it in orbit.
The spacecraft in question (the HTV) has been on the drawing boards for well over a decade - originally scheduled to enter service in 2001, it has been much delayed by lack of funding by JAXA and ongoing problems with the H-II booster.
Japan is one of the major partners as well... That being said, we are poking sticks at the Russians but they can barely meet their own commitments for the foreseeable future. (The Soyuz and Progress capsules are built JIT and the components thereof in small intermittent lots - which makes it very difficult to increase the production rate.)
Assuming the algae in question are suitable for such usage.
$11.34 + this months payment on the loan covering the costs of installation + costs of maintenance and operation.
Only if you make the mistaken (and ignorant) assumption that the past faults of the West somehow gives the China of today a free pass.
Of course, you and Mr, Pickens define the problem differently - you define it as lack of energy and/or transmission capability.
He defines it as a lack of cash.