if we presume that people are eventually going to establish a permanent presence on the moon, and their numbers increase as the colonies become well-established and fully self-sufficient, then a point will eventually be reached where the "skiers" will have successfully managed to push all the best "powder" downhill to where it no longer resides on a "skiable" slope.
Since the weather on the moon will not replenish the "powder" upslope in anything resembling a useful timeframe on the scale of human lives (or even human civilizations), that will be the end of that. No more "powder" on the slope and no more "skiing."
I suspect a bulldozer or two will be borrowed from a nearby construction site and the dust will be returned. No biggie.
This is like Microsoft checking its own code for security holes. If there is a weakness then resources could be better used by trying to eliminate the weakness instead of finding theoretical ways it could be exploited - because there's always the way you didn't think of and THAT's the one that's going to get you.
This test isn't about finding security weakenesses, we already know those exist. This test is about responding to attacks against the weakness - a somewhat different matter.
the Discovery Channel is reporting that an Egyptian-led research team claims to have found compelling new evidence relating to the cause of death of King Tutankhamen
The Discovery Channel has been reporting on new theories of Tutankhamen's death every six months of so for years... Next to sharks it's their biggest infatuation.
Then what were we doing designing and launching the Jupiter and Thor IRBMs as NASA was formed? Those IRBMs (which we staged in Britain and other European allied countries) forced Russia to develop a crash ICBM program before we were ready. (Which was why Russia got Sputnik up while we had our pants down.) The US military responded with ICBMs such as the Atlas and Titan which would later go on to be used as commercial and military launch systems. The old IRBMs were redesigned for use in the Saturn and Delta rockets.
This is so drug addled, I don't even know where to begin. For starters try comparing the launch date of Sputnik with the operational date of the Thor missile with the founding date of NASA with the operational date of the Atlas missile. The note how long both missile has been in development.
Wrong again. NASA's free ride lasted only a couple of years, from 1964 to 1967 when it all came to screeching halt.
What the heck are you talking about?
The NASA budget cuts that started in 1967 and continued thereafter.
NASA didn't make it to the moon until 1969. The US remained committed throughout that period, and even afterwards.
In the fanboy version of history, yes. In reality, no. In reality two planned Apollo missions were cut in 1967 and AAP capped - severely. The cap was so deep that NASA requested a third Apollo mission be cut so it's booster could become Skylab. (Otherwise - there never would have been an AAP/Skylab.)
The remainder of your post is equally disconnected from reality.
Nope, I'm continuing to counteract your drooling fanboy fantasies about how the history of NASA played out.
Look, go read some history, will you?
I have read some real history. My personal library contains about 45 volumes devoted to the history of space and strategic missile development, and I'm a regular participant on a space history newsgroup. I've spent 25 years studying the issues.
Poppycock. NASA never lied about the cost. What happened was that they constantly had to revise their figures as money was doled out piecemeal. The original estimates were based on a least-time to completion track for a technology that was very different from what finally flew.
To put is simply, bullshit. NASA based their cost estimated on a very rosy vision of what could be done, even though almost no development had been done. (NASA is historically very bad at estimating costs.)
The original estimates were based on a least-time to completion track for a technology that was very different from what finally flew.
Yes, NASA's original estimates were based building a much larger and more complicated craft with technology even less developed than that which they eventually chose - and was supposed to fly sooner to boot.
Nixon told NASA to meet the military's needs as well, and throw in the kitchen sink for good measure.
Um, no. NASA solicited DoD support to save the Shuttle after the political firestorm they created by asking for way too much money for the ambitious von Braun scheme.
The price went up. Then the funding was shifted around several times to stretch it out over more fiscal years. Since NASA couldn't build half a spaceplane and couldn't save the money until they needed it (federal regulations), the design had to change. The price went up.
Not even remotely. The price went up partially because of the massive inflation of the early 70's and partly because NASA had badly underestimated development costs. The program continued to stretch because NASA was under a fairly hard budget cap. (Once the program was 'official' (1972) the design changed very little - NASA had already settled on what is essentially the current design.)
When the government commits stupidity after stupidity, it's the taxpayers who pay for it, not the government.
The goverment had very little to do with it - 99% of the blame can be laid at the feet of NASA itself.
Or to put it simply; you really need to study the history of the space program and the Shuttle. Because you don't have a clue.
NASA to me was always a ploy to keep us aware of communism and the USSR.
Now that's just nonsense. NASA was developed to provide an environment for rocket development that the military couldn't provide.
Now, that's just nonsense. NASA was formed to provide a civilian agency to coordinate space research and development, and to get the military out of the drivers seat. (Ike was big on getting the military out of things.)
America was already falling WAY behind Russia in rocket technology.
Not noticeably. In fact, the US was ahead by 1960 when the [Missile|Bomber] gap became a campaign issue. There was a perception that we were behind, but we know that perception was false. When NASA was formed, the ICBM/IRBM/SLBM systems were already moving away from the convential liquid fueled rockets that would characterize NASA during the 60's.
Putting aside the PR issues with smaller countries (many of whom might chose to join the USSR if they were perceived as being more powerful), there was the matter of keeping parity in ICBM technology. If that parity was lost, the nukes just might have started raining down.
NASA was all about two things; civilian control of space exploration, and penis comparison contests. It had nothing to do with parity, as the military was already evolving down a different technological path. (One of the problems of NASA today is that they haven't evolved in technology beyond window dressing.)
Back when it was formed, NASA succeeded wildly in its endevours. But it was also given a free hand. Once Nixon was in office, all that ended.
Wrong again. NASA's free ride lasted only a couple of years, from 1964 to 1967 when it all came to screeching halt. Nixon inherited a NASA already in the process of being trimmed.
NASA was told to shut down operations and begin building a token space infrastructure.
Nope. NASA was asked to provide a plan for what they wanted to do post Apollo - and they returned to what is known as the von Braun Vision (which they had been diverted from by Apollo) - that is, build a Shuttle, use that to build a Station, then use that experience to head off to the Moon (permanently) and Mars. (The Shuttle's development started in earnest about 1967-68, and represented a core plan for NASA from about 1959-60. Well before Nixon.)
In a time of tightening budgets - this plan, which would have cost many times that of Apollo, was completely unnaceptable. Not just to the Administration, but to Congress as well. From the political wreckage *NASA* chose to continue Shuttle development, fooling themselves into believing that the blank checks would soon come again.
I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.
Not really. A more appropriate action would be to develop a different way to pay content creators than trying to map the analogy of physical items made out of molecules onto abstract concepts made from pure information.
The problem is; copyright has nothing to do with physical items. Copyright is about protecting ideas - not about protecting physical objects, never has been, never will be. It works the same today as it did when books had to be re-typeset by hand, you cannot copy (legally, except in limited circumstances) what does not belong to you.
Except that the most common utility - electricity - has had tiered acess and variable rates for decades.
Really?
No, but they do charge mess less at night and my rate varies by how much I use in toto. That's variable pricing. They also have variable rates of acess reliability - in the event of large area damage to the infrastructure, the hospital, CENCOM, etc... will be restored first. If brownouts are needed, those facilities won't be browned - but the residential service will be. I can also pay additional money for three phase power, or for varied delivery voltages. That's tiered acess.
And that's just my electricity. Correction, that's just for my residential electricity. If I were running a factory or a large office building - it gets even more complicated.
Does your electric company make you pay extra for "TV electricity" and limit you to 4 slices of toast per day? Because that's what they're proposing.
It's more complex than the systems used by [plain old] utilities - but it's same basic philosophy. The poster to whom I was replying seems to think that utilities are single pay/all you can eat (which the internet currently is) - when the reality is that they aren't.
It appears NASA & the shuttle are not the only ways for the government to launch satellites anymore.
"NASA & the Shuttle" were the only way to launch goverment birds for only a very brief period of time in the 80's. Other than that, NASA is the launch provider for the goverment - with the exception of military birds.
Doesn't really work. On the phone side, I can purchase unlimited calling plans easily. Not only that, but there's a REASON for the expense. The phone company has to pay OTHER phone companies to get where they need to go.
And you think they don't have to for network traffic?
Comparing it to electricity is even worse. Electricity is a VERY finite resource. True, bandwidth could be considered finite, but bandwidth doesn't require them fire up another reactor to generate more juice.
Bandwidth doesn't have to considered finite - it *is* finite. And no, they don't have to fire up another reactor, they have to hook up to dark fiber (expensive once all the gear is purchased) or lay more fiber (very, very expensive).
When own owns the property, one can legally do a great deal of things with it - including charging for something that was once free or controlling the supply.
What utter bullshit! All that infrastructure that the telcos obstensibly "own" was paid for by massive loans from the U.S Government. We the people own the copper; we've just loaned the telcos the privilage of administering it.
Only in some drug addled fantasy world.
I say that colluding to screw over the citizenry with "tiered internet" -- whether it's "industry standard" or not -- is grounds for revoking the telcos' monopoly rights, and possibly shutting them down entirely and handing control over to other companies that know their place!
If there was evidence of collusion - that would be a grand idea. But collusion is a legal concept - one that takes a great of proof. It's not the appearence of collusion, nor is it cooperating to set industry standards.
Then either you didn't read TFA, or you don't have a clue how utility planning, provisioning, and billing works. Or is it both?
Imagine if your electric company could cut a deal with Sony, under which you couldn't get power for your cheap Chinese region-free DVD player but instead had to buy a Sony to watch Region 1 DVDs and were out of luck for the rest. Something analogous is in danger of happening to our internet access.
Um under that idea the Internet already has tiered rates, with people paying for more bandwidth(dial-up, DSL, Cable, T1, T3, etc)
ROTFLMAO. No, those are different access methods - tiers are the amount of service (gigs/mo, etc....)
What they are talking about is artifically limiting the speed of some websites so the telco's can charge you more for browsing slashdot, and causing a/.'ing to one of their servers.
Try reading the article - I know it has lots of big words, but you'll get through it.
It seems to me that there are plenty of contenders out there vying for the home broadband market, and with upcoming wireless standards more contenders will emerge. We're not going to be stuck choosing between cable and DSL. Unless the main providers can create an illegal cartel (and evade government prosecution for doing so), I can't see that tiered service will ever harm us.
If you can't see it - it's only because you are utterly without a clueas to how the internet works. All those contenders end up connecting to same pipes - pipes controlled by the big providers. There can be 5,000 different home broadband providers here in Seattle - but none of them can connect me to a website hosted in Portland (let LA, or.UK) without those pipes.
Then it occurred to me that these minornets could very well be linked to one another -- microwave or other wireless connections. Sure, the latency goes up, but the reliance on the communications cartels (there is definitely a collusive conspiracy theory there!) is reduced greatly. You tie into the main Internet at a few points, set up your routing to get everyone into the main Internet in the fastest fashion, and you're set.
The internet works because of the massive pipes criss crossing the whole world - and you cannot bypass or replace those pipes with a net of minornets. And those big pipes belong to Big Business.
We have to thank the big providers for really being confused for so long as to how they can take advantage of the net. Now we have many ways to stay connected -- I connect to the web via my PDA (and my laptop) through my Samsung t809 with a Bluetooth connection. I'm using it right now, and I get 150kbps downloads -- more than enough. If I didn't have T-Mobile's great package, I know I have about 5 other wireless providers I could buy bandwidth from.
ROTFLMAO. And all of these providers depend ultimately on the big pipes - that is what connects you to the web, not your Bluetooth (which is just the last link of the chain).
ive it time. Those who try to control you will not realize that there are those who know they can offer less control at a better price. Don't like the monopoly tiered service in your community? Go get a T1, and run a WiFi provider in your area.
Works great - but you've only traded one monopoly for another. Again, you delude yourself into thinking that buying burgers from Wendy's means you've escaped the clutches of Big Business Burgers like McDonalds.
I really think that the whole idea of relying on the big boys' land lines might not be necessary. I was a endpoint on Fidonet, and got along just fine as technology progressed -- some people used X.25, some used landlines, some used ISDN lines, but we all got along. It was slow, but it worked, and it became better over time.
It worked because one big boy or another, who controlled acess to those lines, granted you acess in exchange for a fee. Wendy's, Burger King, McDonalds - X.25, landline, ISDN.
I can see this being attempted, no doubt. However I simply cannot see it being accepted by the public. You can't take away something that was free from the public without causing a revolution.
That's true - of things that were once free. For the home user, the internet has never been free. Whether dial-up, DSL or cable - the connection has always cost something.
I don't think these people have as firm a grasp on the concept of the internet that they think.
Oh, they have a very, very firm concept of the internet.
The net has never been free - somebody has had to pay for each and every host, switch, and foot of cable. In the early days it *seemed* free because the universities allowed uncontrolled acess - but those early users succumbed to a delusion: that since they were not personally charged, the 'net was 'free'. That delusion persists today.
But how can it even be legal for Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T to agree to discontinue free service, or reduce output (where "output" is service to the customer, in this case)? Seriously, IANAL, how can this be legal?
When own owns the property, one can legally do a great deal of things with it - including charging for something that was once free or controlling the supply.
Your link to price fixing is meaningless - as there is (currently) no evidence of collusion. As the articles states "following the practices of the industry leader is not illegal".
The idea of competition is that, when Verizon does something stupid that punishes customers, I can go somewhere else. It's a real problem if all the gatekeepers can legally get together and decide to give us all the shaft. And not even to try to hide their cooperation against consumers?! Messed up.
So long as the 'gatekeepers' agree that this is the industry standard - it's not illegal. It only becomes so when they actively cooperate to set prices, which there is no evidence of.
I could go on an on about how bad of an idea it is but I fear I am just wasting my breath. Until internet access is treated as a utility, this nonsense will continue to go on unchecked.
Except that the most common utility - electricity - has had tiered acess and variable rates for decades. Ditto phone service, and natural gas, and cable, and water/sewer...
Standardising around a simple, low cost, low power vehicle which is already tough would put future teams on a level playing field, ensuring that it was the superior systems that won the day, and that no-one could profit from their ability to buy mechanical muscle.
It would ensure superior computers systems won the day - at least systems that were superior on that mechanical platform. This leaves unadressed the question of whether that platform is suited for further development for field usage. I.E. it's great for the narrow domain of winning a contest - but it sucks for real world application because it freezes the development and exploration of different mechanical platforms. (It also stall the development of software - as the software becomes ever more tailored to the platform.)
Diversity is important in research - whether in mechanics or in [computer] hardware or in software, OS or application.
2) The robot may run Linux, but that doesn't mean that any of its sensitive code is GPL'd. They might just be using the OS.
Indeed. Every time one of these stories comes out - there's a slew of fanboy drooling and wondering if 'the code' would be released. (d00d, its teh GPL!)
I suspect, in this instance, that you are correct. Linux is nothing more than the OS that runs the control computers - and it's probably stripped down and simplified. (For example - the interface code will be vastly simplified, and likely the drivers are inline.)
Funny, I coulda sworn I saw some Zenits and Atlas Vs flying.
So? Those are Zenit's and Atlas V's - not Energia's.
The Energia is far from "as dead as the Saturn V". Most of the technology is still in place, and much of it is still in use.
So what if the technology is still in place? The design team is long scattered. The parts are no longer in production. The assembly hall filled with dust and rust... The Energia is dead.
As far as rockets go, it [the Energia] was one of the best pieces of engineering that Russia ever produced..
With only two launches under it's belt - that's an emotional fanboy statement, not an engineering one. In fact, what flew wasn't actually Energia - but prototypes. Critical technologies (like the recovery system) never flew.
Which is precisely what NASA isn't doing. The current scheme, just like Apollo, will end up providing expensive white elephants. Too expensive to keep us on the moon.
You keep telling yourself that. I, on the other hand, will be gleefully awaiting the launch of the Earth Departure Vehicle and the Lunar Surface Access Module.
I didn't say they wouldn't fly - I said they wouldn't be able to keep us there. A very significant difference. We'll go - maybe 5 times max, unless NASA brings the costs way down from current estimates. (And NASA's track record is bleak on that front.)
Reusable components that will take us to the moon the same way we should have gone the first time.
[laughs] There isn't enough re-useable in either launcher to significantly impact long range operating costs. (Especially given that the SRB isn't significantly cheaper in it's reuseable form than it would be in it's disposable form.)
ot the mention the wonderous joy of having a superbooster back on the payroll that isn't attached to a 109 metric tonne pair of wings. Can you say, "Space Station Freedom in 2 flights?"
Sure, it's a wonderous joy - but a big payload means a low flight rate, and the flip side of a low flight rate is tremendous per flight costs, as certainly as night follows day.
Expensive new launchers with virtually zero use beyond the moon mission isn't the right way - but it is how NASA is doing it.
Pardon me, sir, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There is absolutely nothing mission specific about the "Porklauncher V" (like the name, BTW).
As a matter of fact - I do know what the hell I'm talking about. There are no missions on the books, beyond the moon mission, that require that kind of capability.
They are widely called the Porklauncher in the space development community - I.E. guys who are experts on this stuff, because their primary role is to launch pork. The design was chosen because (and this is directly from NASA itself) it "provides the most use of existing contracts and facilities". I.E., they aren't the lowest cost solution, they aren't most efficient solution, they aren't the most cost-effective solution...
They are the solution that keeps the standing armies at the Cape and Houston employed, and keep the dollars flowing towards the United Space Alliance monopoly.
It's the HLV that's interesting. Just as the Saturn V boosted Skylab in a single launch, and was going to boost the mini-Orion in a single launch, so will the Shuttle Derived HLV be able to launch extensive, and useful payloads.
And thats just the problem - there aren't any such payloads. Beyond the moon mission, there is nothing on the books - and Congress is extremely unlikely to fund any multi billion missions to provide one.
Would you rather NASA followed the original "Orbital Space Plane"
Slashdot Mirror
Dangit - when I read the article headline I was hoping for an MMO set in Arlen, Texas.
So solar power goes from providing 1x10-1000000000 of our power supply to providing 1.1x10-1000000000, that's a *lot* more prevalent - yes!
The remainder of your post is equally disconnected from reality.
Or to put it simply; you really need to study the history of the space program and the Shuttle. Because you don't have a clue.
In a time of tightening budgets - this plan, which would have cost many times that of Apollo, was completely unnaceptable. Not just to the Administration, but to Congress as well. From the political wreckage *NASA* chose to continue Shuttle development, fooling themselves into believing that the blank checks would soon come again.
And that's just my electricity. Correction, that's just for my residential electricity. If I were running a factory or a large office building - it gets even more complicated.
It's more complex than the systems used by [plain old] utilities - but it's same basic philosophy. The poster to whom I was replying seems to think that utilities are single pay/all you can eat (which the internet currently is) - when the reality is that they aren't.The net has never been free - somebody has had to pay for each and every host, switch, and foot of cable. In the early days it *seemed* free because the universities allowed uncontrolled acess - but those early users succumbed to a delusion: that since they were not personally charged, the 'net was 'free'. That delusion persists today.
Your link to price fixing is meaningless - as there is (currently) no evidence of collusion. As the articles states "following the practices of the industry leader is not illegal".So long as the 'gatekeepers' agree that this is the industry standard - it's not illegal. It only becomes so when they actively cooperate to set prices, which there is no evidence of.
Diversity is important in research - whether in mechanics or in [computer] hardware or in software, OS or application.
I suspect, in this instance, that you are correct. Linux is nothing more than the OS that runs the control computers - and it's probably stripped down and simplified. (For example - the interface code will be vastly simplified, and likely the drivers are inline.)
So? Those are Zenit's and Atlas V's - not Energia's.
So what if the technology is still in place? The design team is long scattered. The parts are no longer in production. The assembly hall filled with dust and rust... The Energia is dead.
With only two launches under it's belt - that's an emotional fanboy statement, not an engineering one. In fact, what flew wasn't actually Energia - but prototypes. Critical technologies (like the recovery system) never flew.
I didn't say they wouldn't fly - I said they wouldn't be able to keep us there. A very significant difference. We'll go - maybe 5 times max, unless NASA brings the costs way down from current estimates. (And NASA's track record is bleak on that front.)
[laughs] There isn't enough re-useable in either launcher to significantly impact long range operating costs. (Especially given that the SRB isn't significantly cheaper in it's reuseable form than it would be in it's disposable form.)
Sure, it's a wonderous joy - but a big payload means a low flight rate, and the flip side of a low flight rate is tremendous per flight costs, as certainly as night follows day.
As a matter of fact - I do know what the hell I'm talking about. There are no missions on the books, beyond the moon mission, that require that kind of capability.
They are widely called the Porklauncher in the space development community - I.E. guys who are experts on this stuff, because their primary role is to launch pork. The design was chosen because (and this is directly from NASA itself) it "provides the most use of existing contracts and facilities". I.E., they aren't the lowest cost solution, they aren't most efficient solution, they aren't the most cost-effective solution...
They are the solution that keeps the standing armies at the Cape and Houston employed, and keep the dollars flowing towards the United Space Alliance monopoly.
And thats just the problem - there aren't any such payloads. Beyond the moon mission, there is nothing on the books - and Congress is extremely unlikely to fund any multi billion missions to provide one.