Any 1000-ton payload to Mars is going to have to be assembled on near Earth orbit
I didn't mean to suggest that we start with 1000 tons. Start with 10 tons, and slowly work up from there. But until you can do 1000 tons, there's not much sense in figuring out how to deal with humans in space. And even if you decide that you want to assemble in orbit, I bet that could be done without building a space station.
Of course, but it may be more realistic to try to move the ISS budget to other space exploration missions than it is to move defense contractor budget to NASA.
It's not like your average scientist can just ask to get whatever tested in microgravity.
It will be even harder for the same scientist to get his stuff tested on a mission to Mars. The problem is of course not the available time (plenty!), but the extra mass, power and space required by the experiment.
Not very insightful actually. People on Earth keep themselves alive for the most part. To keep people alive in space needs an infrastructure that cost hundreds of billions of dollars on the cheap end.
...unless your final goal is permanent human habitation of space.
There would be very little accomplished by doing such a thing, especially when compared with the insane price tag. But, sanity aside, even if you wanted to do something like that, the best first step for such a project would be to practice landing heavy things on Mars. So, let's send more robotic rovers, and make them heavier each time. That way you can combine practice with actual interesting science. When you get to a point where you can land 1000 ton objects safely on Mars, that's when you can start thinking about sending the first people.
The primary use for the space station is to practice with sending astronauts in space. The problem is that there's no actual use for people in space, so the practice is useless too. Sure, we all hear the stories that a human geologist could do stuff so much quicker than a remote controlled robotic rover. Of course, these stories never discuss how much extra time you'd need to get the human geologist there in the first place, and what it would cost. In the same time, and for less money, you can launch a few dozen unmanned missions, each to a different location, carrying different kinds of tools, and get more results.
Thinner skull bones only mean one thing - earlier death !
Everything is a matter of balance. You can die from blows to the head, or you can die from being too slow to outrun an enemy/predator because your head is overly heavy. Depending on the lifestyle, you get a different optimum skull size. Also, the invention of helmets and other protective gear has allowed humans to survive better with thinner skulls.
The skull can expand outward, and has already expanded through the evolutionary process
Exactly, and for that reason, human childbirth is a slow and painful process with a high death rate. It also required human babies to be born earlier in the gestation, resulting in relatively helpless infants who take a year before they can walk. It is obvious that bigger and thicker skulls would cause even more problems.
Thinner skull bones leave more room for the brain. And stronger bones take more energy, not just in building/maintenance of the bone itself, but also as additional weight you have to move around all the time, so there's definitely an energy related trade-off between bigger bones or a bigger brain.
Motion blur isn't perfect, though, because it only works if your eyes don't track moving objects, which is something that happens in a lot in action games.
Slashdot Mirror
Asteroids seem to deorbit pretty effectively on a fuel budget of zero.
Only for a limited range of sizes. Too small, and they'll completely burn up. Too big, and they'll explode on impact.
That knowledge flows into the private commerce section of our economy and slowly brings benefits that we have yet to imagine.
Exactly how does learning to live and work in space bring commercial benefits ? Or is that "yet to imagine" ?
You act as if "we" only have a single opinion.
Any 1000-ton payload to Mars is going to have to be assembled on near Earth orbit
I didn't mean to suggest that we start with 1000 tons. Start with 10 tons, and slowly work up from there. But until you can do 1000 tons, there's not much sense in figuring out how to deal with humans in space. And even if you decide that you want to assemble in orbit, I bet that could be done without building a space station.
Of course, but it may be more realistic to try to move the ISS budget to other space exploration missions than it is to move defense contractor budget to NASA.
It's not like your average scientist can just ask to get whatever tested in microgravity.
It will be even harder for the same scientist to get his stuff tested on a mission to Mars. The problem is of course not the available time (plenty!), but the extra mass, power and space required by the experiment.
Not very insightful actually. People on Earth keep themselves alive for the most part. To keep people alive in space needs an infrastructure that cost hundreds of billions of dollars on the cheap end.
Make space travel commonplace.
Pretty much impossible task. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is a harsh mistress.
As far as anyone can tell, there's no actual use for people here
Quite true, but people have a remarkable resistance to getting killed. What can you do ?
We've been running similar experiments for decades now. How much more useful things to do can you come up with to do in micro/zero gravity ?
...unless your final goal is permanent human habitation of space.
There would be very little accomplished by doing such a thing, especially when compared with the insane price tag. But, sanity aside, even if you wanted to do something like that, the best first step for such a project would be to practice landing heavy things on Mars. So, let's send more robotic rovers, and make them heavier each time. That way you can combine practice with actual interesting science. When you get to a point where you can land 1000 ton objects safely on Mars, that's when you can start thinking about sending the first people.
The primary use for the space station is to practice with sending astronauts in space. The problem is that there's no actual use for people in space, so the practice is useless too. Sure, we all hear the stories that a human geologist could do stuff so much quicker than a remote controlled robotic rover. Of course, these stories never discuss how much extra time you'd need to get the human geologist there in the first place, and what it would cost. In the same time, and for less money, you can launch a few dozen unmanned missions, each to a different location, carrying different kinds of tools, and get more results.
If you're going to compare mechanical switches, the unicomp keyboard should be included too.
Who said anything about making the world a better place ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Calling kids "little monkeys" is not name calling.
Maybe you should market a "jump to conclusions" play mat. It would have different conclusions printed on it, and you would jump to them.
BTW, you can get a cheap PLC for approx $50
Camera included ? And you don't need additional tools for programming ?
For a hobbyist, a PLC isn't as cheap or as easy to get as a Raspberry Pi, or iPhone.
So they got the price of an aircraft carrier wrong by 2 pennies. No big deal.
More likely that the original gene for yellow was first duplicated, and then the two copies diverged through mutations.
Thinner skull bones only mean one thing - earlier death !
Everything is a matter of balance. You can die from blows to the head, or you can die from being too slow to outrun an enemy/predator because your head is overly heavy. Depending on the lifestyle, you get a different optimum skull size. Also, the invention of helmets and other protective gear has allowed humans to survive better with thinner skulls.
The skull can expand outward, and has already expanded through the evolutionary process
Exactly, and for that reason, human childbirth is a slow and painful process with a high death rate. It also required human babies to be born earlier in the gestation, resulting in relatively helpless infants who take a year before they can walk. It is obvious that bigger and thicker skulls would cause even more problems.
Thinner skull bones leave more room for the brain. And stronger bones take more energy, not just in building/maintenance of the bone itself, but also as additional weight you have to move around all the time, so there's definitely an energy related trade-off between bigger bones or a bigger brain.
Unless of course, the mushroom just make you think this is happening.
Motion blur isn't perfect, though, because it only works if your eyes don't track moving objects, which is something that happens in a lot in action games.