The developers of launch technologies were (until recently) doing so almost solely at the behest of the government.
Sure - if you define "until recently" as "until the early 1970's". What you repeat is a prevalent meme in the space fanboi community - the problem is, it isn't true. Now, it *is* true that development since then is strongly derived from what went before - but they weren't designed to goverment specifications per se.
And demand for space access is strongly shaped by the economics of the current launch vehicles. It's a classic chicken and egg problem.
Very true - and nothing more than a restatement of what I already said.
I think that if companies could launch 5,000 pound communications platforms for only 5 million dollars, you'd have things like ubiquitous and cheap LEO satellite broadband.
Why? The birds themselves will still cost in the tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars each, and a couple of dozen at least will be required to provide 24/7 availability across the US. (Unless you go geosync - which is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.) Current birds aren't expensive because launch costs are expensive, they are expensive because they must function in an extreme enviroment for years at a time without maintenance. (And no, you can't just 'launch spares' - because a) they won't be cheap either and b) they are subject to the same enviroment.)
I suspect that the ability to transport goods and passengers around the globe in just a few hours would greatly open up demand once it became available, simply because people would get used to the idea that it's possible to begin with. (Remember, they said similar things to the guy who started FedEx.)
Educated and knowledgeable people didn't say that to the guy who started FedEx - because he was building on a long established market with well established demand. What educated and knowledgeable people said was that he was fool to go up against the established and well entrenched services and companies already in existence.
Too easy to make money off the government doing what we're doing now.
Nice theory. Somewhat at odds with the facts however - that only about 20% or less of US launches are goverment sponsored. The remainder are commercial.
If we were really serious about lowering launch costs, we would be pouring money into researching these.
That's the rub - we don't need any new technologies to lower launch costs. We could cut them by half or more simply by using existing vehicles but mass producing them and using automated checkout systems. You make things cheap by lowering your fixed and direct costs as much as possible - and by amortizing your overhead across a bunch of units rather than a handful. You don't lower launch costs by spending billions up front on R&D in absence of a proven market.
One of the most persistent, and harmful, myths in the alt.space community is the belief that space acess is somehow 'different' and the normal rules of engineering and accounting don't apply.
Of course there is also the elephant in the room that the alt.space community really tries very hard to wish away - flight demand. To dramatically lower costs, by any method, requires a demand at least an order or two of magnitude above the current - and no amount of handwaving can disguise the fact that the demand simply doesn't exist. Which is ultimately why the big companies don't really do what can be done to reduce launch costs - after spending the money up front to reduce costs (which won't be cheap) there is very little probability of recouping it.
I do rather hope he's okay but the moral here is never go x-country without 'booking-out' first even if that means just telling your friend where you're going.
And even if you tell a friend - carry an EPIRB/PLT/ELT.
Most academic types do the research for its own sake, not necessarily to make money directly from it.
That's a nice theory - but it really doesn't hold water. As you yourself say;
These people tend to make money by writing books about their research, conducting lectures on it, and using it on their resumes to get nice tenured positions.
If they are using the research to get money - they are doing the research to get money. Period. Any other claim is just doublespeak to comfort their minds and make them feel all 'moral' and 'academic' and above the money grubbing workaday crowd. My brother-in-law (A full Dr and Professor of Economics) puts it thus: "You are damm straight it's about the money - I have two daughters who may want to go to college someday, a new baby, a house payment, a car payment, and have the rather bad habit of eating on a regular basis". (His daughters, if they go to his college will get reduced tuition - but it isn't free, ditto for the house. It's price controlled by the University, and *substantially* cheaper than living out in town, but it's not free.)
isn't it time to say enough is enough, and demand free access to the research we pay for through our taxes?
Sure. Assuming the research in question actually was paid for by taxes... And not by a private (corporate or individual or foundation) grant, or by a private (University or corporate or individual or foundation) trust fund.
Which also brings up the question, under the terms of his employment contract or the funding document, whether Dr. Rust had the right to release the paper under a CC license in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that research should be open and widely distributed - but the question is not as black-and-white as the Slashdot community would like to believe.
The problem is how do you get permission to launch a satalite with a nuclear (alpha partical emitter) power genarator when you get every brain dead anti-nuclear chicken little screaming that you will cause the death of all humanity.
The problem is slashdot posters who haven't a clue what they are talking about repeating memes that are absolutely at variance with the facts.
The fact is, protests and lawsuits over RTG powered probes have been noticeable by their absence for the last few. (JIMO had none, zero, zip.) The reason more probes don't use RTG's has everything to do with weight and expense - and nothing to do with protestors and lawsuits. Few missions justify the greatly increased costs and design/operations restraints.
(Obligatory disclaimer but without the obligatory tortured acronym: Yes, I am a former submariner (and have been to the Delta Pier many times), and am a student of naval history and related security issues.)
The props haven't been as jealously gaurded recently as in times past - in fact, I saw pictures openly published of them as early as the late 1990's. Though the less knowledgeable may drool over seeing them at all - the pictures on Virtual Earth are not particularly high res, nor particularly useful. The fact that the US uses scythe blade propellers has been openly acknowledged since the early 90's.
Or, to put it even more simply, these pictures show nothing not already publically known and acknowledged.
Ditto for the weapons magazines - there is nothing classified about the exteriors, existence, or location.
This article is however a interesting point on the problem of getting your news from blogs; sometimes the author knows what he's talking about. Usually, when it comes to specialized topics, he doesn't.
Seriously, the Russians have been announcing a moon base in 'ten years' about every third year since the Soviet Union failed. (During the off years, they announce a Mars mission.) About the only thing that changes is the date on the press release.
This is nothing but political manuvering by Roskosmos.
it does strike me as a little ironic that the Americans are rolling up their sleeves to re-invent the Apollo spacecraft as the big step forward. Hand crafted solutions vs Russian mass production again?
At 81 flights in 40 years, the Soyuz (capsule) is hardly in mass production.
Presumably it will be a whole lot cheaper for the Russians, who are still turning out Soyuz same as they ever were, to tweak an improved model a bit.
Huh? Production and flight rate of both the Soyuz (capsule) and the Soyuz (booster) are down by over 50% from their late 80's/early 90's peak.
The romantic in me
Now we see the real problem. Like many a Slashdotter - when it comes to the space program, the 'factual' nerd vanishes to be replaced by his 'romantic' counterpart.
There won't be any real regulation of them for a while, but that won't stop people from using them.
I don't know of a single country in the developed world that won't regulate them right out of the starting gates.
And these will likely be flying deathtraps for a while.
The problem, and the reason they will be nearly universally regulated, is they won't be 'flying deathtraps' they will be 'falling towards the innocent bystander below deathtraps'.
It would seem to me that the only way to make these things remotely safe would be to equip them not only with a parachute, but with airbags on the outside to protect those that are going to be in their homes beneath these things!
Airbags on the outside won't protect anyone. Even if they did absorb all the impact energy (which, lacking magic, they can't), that still leaves a ton or more of Skycar sitting on someone's roof or rolling about like a bowling ball on crack.
There are ALWAYS ways to blackmail someone. If NASA believes that these sorts of background checks really work, they've been breathing too much vacuum.
Ah, the same old nonsense - "these methods can't stop all possible blackmail routes, so we shouldn't even try". Nonsense.
Not to mention - having been involved with security clearances, I'll take the opinions of professionals over that of random Slashdot posters.
Show me where I violated George Lucas's copyright, please.
Lightsabre, Death Star, TIE fighter, Imperial Battlecruiser... Not to mention the firing of the Death Star's 'gun'.
I was VERY careful not to include elements from the Star Wars movies. Using $2 toys from Wal-Mart and your own homemade lightsaber effects doesn't count.
If you were very careful to avoid elements from the Star Wars movies... Then why is the commercial filled with elements (objects) from the Star Wars movies? That models and the effects are cheap doesn't change a thing.
Not to mention that this commercial was not being done to make any money (heck I LOST money if anything).
Viacom's use of the clip was done for commercial purposes.
Whether you made or lost money on the deal it utterly irrelevant. Whether Viacom chose to exercise fair use rights for commercial purposes is irrelevant.
I do however have a problem with them telling me that I cannot use a derivative work of my own original material
Under the law, they are in the right and you are in the wrong. Period. The copyright of the derivative material belongs to them. Period. That's the core element of fair use.
but I think if this were to go to court, Knight would probably be awarded some money. VH1's use was obvious infringement. I'm sure they figured they could get away with it because the authors of the "web junk" they were using without permission would find it flattering, which was probably true, but doesn't change the fact that it was clearly for-profit, commercial infringement.
Nothing in the concept or definition of fair use precludes items used under being used for profit.
Agreed, it's only one form of valid question, as is your question - they're only examples of questions that might be considered scientific. But the exam paper question is not a scientific question. It is asking about a social use to which that unique characteristic can be put - identification.
Maybe you had best go read the test again - the topic of discussion is question #6, which is a scientific question. It does not ask about a social use, but a scientific fact.
I'm a bit bemused that you think I prefer bias to logic! On what grounds?
More than adequately described above. You can't keep straight the difference between questions #6 and #7. You can't tell the difference between a scientific question (howsoever clumsily phrased) and a social question - despite it being pointed out to you. It doesn't seem to occur to you that a question about the use of a scientific fact is in fact a scientific question, instead you apply your agenda.
Who, in their right mind, seeing 1/3 of the population dieing around them, in their houses, etc, is going to be going to work?
Actually - it's the people who don't go back to work are not in their right minds. No matter what happens, if I don't have that paycheck I don't have a house, car, or food.
Military folks are not going to respond to being called-back, and frankly the close living quarters of the military is the best for spreading it around the force.
Military folks are not going to respond the call back? Not any of the (many, many) military folks I know. So far as living in close quarters goes, I imagine they'll do the same thing they did when the flu swept through my unit - anyone symptomatic, suspected of being symptomatic, or suspected of being exposed were quarantined. The rest of us went about our duties. It worked in that case, and may not work in the event of a pandemic - but the military has thought about the problem and will do it's level best.
Why are these "simulations" so naive that they believe folks will continue to work, rather than staying with their families?
Because there is no evidence to assume outright that people will, en masse, simply sit down and wait for their turn. In general, people are much more resilient than you seem to give them credit for.
If half the people in the country are going to be dieing or caring for dieing folks, people aren't going to be worrying about how many strawberries are picked, cows are slaughtered, cars are made, or stocks are traded.
If I'm not dead or dying - I care. I care like hell. If strawberries and beef don't make it to market, I starve. If at least some consumer goods aren't manufactured and distributed my already disrupted lifestyle will be even worse. If utilities aren't maintained, especially in winter, my very life could be in danger from the climate here. If stocks aren't traded, my financial future (already cloudy from the pandemic) becomes noticeably worse.
And what's fascinating, in that light, is the general Slashdot response to this issue. If the article was about China appointing its own Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, you can be sure the highly rated articles would not be condemnations of the Chinese Goverment... But rather would be condemnations of the Catholic Church.
Just hand out a pass or a fail. Don't give grades. That's my theory.
Anyway, the problem with dumbing down the tests or merely upping the scores is that the really good students shine less.
Is it a symptom of the failure of education that you don't see the logical inconsistency between the two statements? If you want really good students to shine more, then handing out a simple pass/fail grade is precisely the way not to do it.
Dumb science down, and you get dumb scientists. What we need is a way to make it more interesting -- and show students how, for example, conducting an experiment or programming a simulation on a computer can be fun.
That's just the problem. For most people conducting an experiment or programming a computer isn't fun. Oh sure, you can dumb it down and dress it up until almost anyone finds it fun - but at what cost down the road when they encounter the real world?
I suspect the weight of the light saber safely falls within the margin of error they build into their fuel calculations and as such won't really cost them any more than they are already going to spend/use in fuel anyway.
They've narrowed the margin of error pretty close to zero over the years as they've gained experience in operations. Things like fuel consumption, residuals, etc... etc... have become pretty much predictable, mostly because gravity is a constant and atmosphere conditions are measurable and roughly predictable. For missions to ISS the performance margins are so tight that the missions would be nearly impossible without this narrowed margin of error. (The Shuttle was designed to function mostly at a lower orbital inclination - higher inclinations cause performance hits.)
There isn't any reason why we can't make all our endeavors a little more fun and inspiring, it's what humans are all about.
Yeah, that's the amusing part about most of the replies to this article. Usually replies to articles about NASA and the Shuttle are filled with rants about how NASA should do more to attract attention, engage the imagination, etc... etc... And now they they are doing something (howsoever poorly and/or oddly chosen) - they get crap for doing it rather than something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure - if you define "until recently" as "until the early 1970's". What you repeat is a prevalent meme in the space fanboi community - the problem is, it isn't true. Now, it *is* true that development since then is strongly derived from what went before - but they weren't designed to goverment specifications per se.
Very true - and nothing more than a restatement of what I already said.
Why? The birds themselves will still cost in the tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars each, and a couple of dozen at least will be required to provide 24/7 availability across the US. (Unless you go geosync - which is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.) Current birds aren't expensive because launch costs are expensive, they are expensive because they must function in an extreme enviroment for years at a time without maintenance. (And no, you can't just 'launch spares' - because a) they won't be cheap either and b) they are subject to the same enviroment.)
Educated and knowledgeable people didn't say that to the guy who started FedEx - because he was building on a long established market with well established demand. What educated and knowledgeable people said was that he was fool to go up against the established and well entrenched services and companies already in existence.
Nice theory. Somewhat at odds with the facts however - that only about 20% or less of US launches are goverment sponsored. The remainder are commercial.
That's the rub - we don't need any new technologies to lower launch costs. We could cut them by half or more simply by using existing vehicles but mass producing them and using automated checkout systems. You make things cheap by lowering your fixed and direct costs as much as possible - and by amortizing your overhead across a bunch of units rather than a handful. You don't lower launch costs by spending billions up front on R&D in absence of a proven market.
One of the most persistent, and harmful, myths in the alt.space community is the belief that space acess is somehow 'different' and the normal rules of engineering and accounting don't apply.
Of course there is also the elephant in the room that the alt.space community really tries very hard to wish away - flight demand. To dramatically lower costs, by any method, requires a demand at least an order or two of magnitude above the current - and no amount of handwaving can disguise the fact that the demand simply doesn't exist. Which is ultimately why the big companies don't really do what can be done to reduce launch costs - after spending the money up front to reduce costs (which won't be cheap) there is very little probability of recouping it.
And even if you tell a friend - carry an EPIRB/PLT/ELT.
That's a nice theory - but it really doesn't hold water. As you yourself say;
If they are using the research to get money - they are doing the research to get money. Period. Any other claim is just doublespeak to comfort their minds and make them feel all 'moral' and 'academic' and above the money grubbing workaday crowd. My brother-in-law (A full Dr and Professor of Economics) puts it thus: "You are damm straight it's about the money - I have two daughters who may want to go to college someday, a new baby, a house payment, a car payment, and have the rather bad habit of eating on a regular basis". (His daughters, if they go to his college will get reduced tuition - but it isn't free, ditto for the house. It's price controlled by the University, and *substantially* cheaper than living out in town, but it's not free.)
Sure. Assuming the research in question actually was paid for by taxes... And not by a private (corporate or individual or foundation) grant, or by a private (University or corporate or individual or foundation) trust fund.
Which also brings up the question, under the terms of his employment contract or the funding document, whether Dr. Rust had the right to release the paper under a CC license in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that research should be open and widely distributed - but the question is not as black-and-white as the Slashdot community would like to believe.
The problem is slashdot posters who haven't a clue what they are talking about repeating memes that are absolutely at variance with the facts.
The fact is, protests and lawsuits over RTG powered probes have been noticeable by their absence for the last few. (JIMO had none, zero, zip.) The reason more probes don't use RTG's has everything to do with weight and expense - and nothing to do with protestors and lawsuits. Few missions justify the greatly increased costs and design/operations restraints.
(Obligatory disclaimer but without the obligatory tortured acronym: Yes, I am a former submariner (and have been to the Delta Pier many times), and am a student of naval history and related security issues.)
The props haven't been as jealously gaurded recently as in times past - in fact, I saw pictures openly published of them as early as the late 1990's. Though the less knowledgeable may drool over seeing them at all - the pictures on Virtual Earth are not particularly high res, nor particularly useful. The fact that the US uses scythe blade propellers has been openly acknowledged since the early 90's.
Or, to put it even more simply, these pictures show nothing not already publically known and acknowledged.
Ditto for the weapons magazines - there is nothing classified about the exteriors, existence, or location.
This article is however a interesting point on the problem of getting your news from blogs; sometimes the author knows what he's talking about. Usually, when it comes to specialized topics, he doesn't.
No. Your sucess, if any, is tied to the demand for your skills.
Ah Bullwinkle Bear, that trick never works!
Seriously, the Russians have been announcing a moon base in 'ten years' about every third year since the Soviet Union failed. (During the off years, they announce a Mars mission.) About the only thing that changes is the date on the press release.
This is nothing but political manuvering by Roskosmos.
At 81 flights in 40 years, the Soyuz (capsule) is hardly in mass production.
Huh? Production and flight rate of both the Soyuz (capsule) and the Soyuz (booster) are down by over 50% from their late 80's/early 90's peak.
Now we see the real problem. Like many a Slashdotter - when it comes to the space program, the 'factual' nerd vanishes to be replaced by his 'romantic' counterpart.
I don't know of a single country in the developed world that won't regulate them right out of the starting gates.
The problem, and the reason they will be nearly universally regulated, is they won't be 'flying deathtraps' they will be 'falling towards the innocent bystander below deathtraps'.
Airbags on the outside won't protect anyone. Even if they did absorb all the impact energy (which, lacking magic, they can't), that still leaves a ton or more of Skycar sitting on someone's roof or rolling about like a bowling ball on crack.
Ah, the same old nonsense - "these methods can't stop all possible blackmail routes, so we shouldn't even try". Nonsense.
Not to mention - having been involved with security clearances, I'll take the opinions of professionals over that of random Slashdot posters.
Lightsabre, Death Star, TIE fighter, Imperial Battlecruiser... Not to mention the firing of the Death Star's 'gun'.
If you were very careful to avoid elements from the Star Wars movies... Then why is the commercial filled with elements (objects) from the Star Wars movies? That models and the effects are cheap doesn't change a thing.
Whether you made or lost money on the deal it utterly irrelevant. Whether Viacom chose to exercise fair use rights for commercial purposes is irrelevant.
Under the law, they are in the right and you are in the wrong. Period. The copyright of the derivative material belongs to them. Period. That's the core element of fair use.
Nothing in the concept or definition of fair use precludes items used under being used for profit.
Maybe you had best go read the test again - the topic of discussion is question #6, which is a scientific question. It does not ask about a social use, but a scientific fact.
More than adequately described above. You can't keep straight the difference between questions #6 and #7. You can't tell the difference between a scientific question (howsoever clumsily phrased) and a social question - despite it being pointed out to you. It doesn't seem to occur to you that a question about the use of a scientific fact is in fact a scientific question, instead you apply your agenda.
Actually - it's the people who don't go back to work are not in their right minds. No matter what happens, if I don't have that paycheck I don't have a house, car, or food.
Military folks are not going to respond the call back? Not any of the (many, many) military folks I know. So far as living in close quarters goes, I imagine they'll do the same thing they did when the flu swept through my unit - anyone symptomatic, suspected of being symptomatic, or suspected of being exposed were quarantined. The rest of us went about our duties. It worked in that case, and may not work in the event of a pandemic - but the military has thought about the problem and will do it's level best.
Because there is no evidence to assume outright that people will, en masse, simply sit down and wait for their turn. In general, people are much more resilient than you seem to give them credit for.
If I'm not dead or dying - I care. I care like hell. If strawberries and beef don't make it to market, I starve. If at least some consumer goods aren't manufactured and distributed my already disrupted lifestyle will be even worse. If utilities aren't maintained, especially in winter, my very life could be in danger from the climate here. If stocks aren't traded, my financial future (already cloudy from the pandemic) becomes noticeably worse.
I didn't claim they were - only noted that Slashdot would make them so.
That's one form of a valid question. "Which part of the human eye is unique" (however asked) is an equally valid question.
The only comment I can make is that you cannot discern the difference between logic and bias. (And dramatically prefer the latter.)
And what's fascinating, in that light, is the general Slashdot response to this issue. If the article was about China appointing its own Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, you can be sure the highly rated articles would not be condemnations of the Chinese Goverment... But rather would be condemnations of the Catholic Church.
Ah. So realizing that various parts of the human eye are unique to individuals is not an interesting (howsoever minor) facet of science?
Is it a symptom of the failure of education that you don't see the logical inconsistency between the two statements? If you want really good students to shine more, then handing out a simple pass/fail grade is precisely the way not to do it.
That's just the problem. For most people conducting an experiment or programming a computer isn't fun. Oh sure, you can dumb it down and dress it up until almost anyone finds it fun - but at what cost down the road when they encounter the real world?
Yes - as much as you may care for youe sister, it's not your decision to make.
They've narrowed the margin of error pretty close to zero over the years as they've gained experience in operations. Things like fuel consumption, residuals, etc... etc... have become pretty much predictable, mostly because gravity is a constant and atmosphere conditions are measurable and roughly predictable. For missions to ISS the performance margins are so tight that the missions would be nearly impossible without this narrowed margin of error. (The Shuttle was designed to function mostly at a lower orbital inclination - higher inclinations cause performance hits.)
Yeah, that's the amusing part about most of the replies to this article. Usually replies to articles about NASA and the Shuttle are filled with rants about how NASA should do more to attract attention, engage the imagination, etc... etc... And now they they are doing something (howsoever poorly and/or oddly chosen) - they get crap for doing it rather than something else.
Poor NASA can't catch a break.