NASA is trying to change how these missions are put together. Rather than have large projects that have multiple objectives, are designed by comittee, and run by NASA, these are smaller self-contained projects.
Basically the PI, conntrols the whole project from sensor design through the collection and analysis of data. NASA gives a fixed budget and then is not involved, other than for oversight is my understanding.
The idea is that the mission can be put together faster and for less money than the tradtional apporoach.
There are examples of their earth science projects following this approach at:
http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/
I'm not familliar with their space exploration projects along this line.
It's not $63 million to crash the lunar prospector into the moon. This is, in effect, value added. The original project was to survey the moon using remote sensing techniques.
That project is over. The satellite has lived out it's useful life time and planned mission. The possibilities are: 1) leave it as space junk, orbiting the moon until it's orbit decays or 2) get more science value out of it.
I doubt the whole effort to crash it cost much at all.
And $63 million is dirt cheap for a space project anyways. To see what you can get for the price, check out the vegetation canopy lidar: http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/vcl/
As someone who works with remote sensing, this is the coolest idea to come along in ages.
There was no visible dust plume seen from the impact. So basically, this didn't work. There may still be results but there seems to be some disappointment.
First off, cutting 10% but maintaining funding for the space station means you are losing more than 10% of both the projects, and IMHO the results.
Second, NASA does a lot of Earth Science funding. The whole Earth Observing System (EOS) is NASA money. If global climate change is real, the information from these satellite are going to have a lot more impact than, "Oh, Look where we went in the Solar System."
Cutting NASA's basic research would decimate both earth and space science. Particularly with the potential damage that global climate change could effect, this seems incredibly short sighted.
The NASA Earth Observing system is a series of remote sensing satellites designed to study the Earth as an integrated system. It is one of the primary means of monitoring and understanding global climate change.
To get a sense of the work that is being done, check out:
http://www.earth.nasa.gov/
Cuts to this project seems unreasonable given both the budget surplus and the maintained funding for the space station with has much higher costs with less certain results.
For the record, I am not completely impartial. I am getting my Ph.D. in geography and work heavilly with remote sensing. I am currently funded through a NASA research grant relating to the MODIS sensor on the TERRA satellite.
The MPAA is notorious for missing the point. The perfect example is the NC-17 rating. This was supposed to be in addition to an X rating. X was for pornography while NC-17 was for explict, but not pornographic content. Eyes Wide Shut would have been a perfect candidate for an NC-17 rating.
However the MPAA, replace the X rating with the NC-17 rating. They didn't get the point. So now, there's still really only one rating for adult material regarless.
How does using a Soc. Sec. number limit illegal immigration? You don't have to be legally employable to get one. Technically, anyone who works, legally or illegally must have one.
There was actually a case in California a while back where an elected official had problems because they hadn't paid social security for a maid they had employed. And the maid was an illegal immigrant.
Slashdot Mirror
To people who don't like command lines, many keys probably are redundant. Just point and click.
To use who actually like to type though, they are the key (no pun intended) componets.
Best I could find it at was $31.96 from borders.
You should try www2.addall.com. It searches 20+ online book sellers and gives the price from each.
I don't have any affliation with the site, just think it's cool.
Cool! I'd been trying to figure that out too. Thanks.
Why would the MS server necessarilly be getting more hits? There's an incentive to crack the linux box - You get it.
With the MS server, it's only bragging rights while you've given your services away for free.
NASA is trying to change how these missions are put together. Rather than have large projects that have multiple objectives, are designed by comittee, and run by NASA, these are smaller self-contained projects.
Basically the PI, conntrols the whole project from sensor design through the collection and analysis of data. NASA gives a fixed budget and then is not involved, other than for oversight is my understanding.
The idea is that the mission can be put together faster and for less money than the tradtional apporoach.
There are examples of their earth science projects following this approach at:
http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/
I'm not familliar with their space exploration projects along this line.
It's not $63 million to crash the lunar prospector into the moon. This is, in effect, value added. The original project was to survey the moon using remote sensing techniques.
That project is over. The satellite has lived out it's useful life time and planned mission. The possibilities are: 1) leave it as space junk, orbiting the moon until it's orbit decays or 2) get more science value out of it.
I doubt the whole effort to crash it cost much at all.
And $63 million is dirt cheap for a space project anyways. To see what you can get for the price,
check out the vegetation canopy lidar:
http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/vcl/
As someone who works with remote sensing, this is the coolest idea to come along in ages.
There was no visible dust plume seen from the
impact. So basically, this didn't work. There may
still be results but there seems to be some disappointment.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/31/moon.htm
First off, cutting 10% but maintaining funding for the space station means you are losing more than 10% of both the projects, and IMHO the results.
Second, NASA does a lot of Earth Science funding. The whole Earth Observing System (EOS) is NASA money. If global climate change is real, the information from these satellite are going to have a lot more impact than, "Oh, Look where we went in the Solar System."
Cutting NASA's basic research would decimate both earth and space science. Particularly with the potential damage that global climate change could effect, this seems incredibly short sighted.
The NASA Earth Observing system is a series of remote sensing satellites designed to study the Earth as an integrated system. It is one of the primary means of monitoring and understanding global climate change.
To get a sense of the work that is being done, check out:
http://www.earth.nasa.gov/
Cuts to this project seems unreasonable given both the budget surplus and the maintained funding for the space station with has much higher costs with less certain results.
For the record, I am not completely impartial. I am getting my Ph.D. in geography and work heavilly with remote sensing. I am currently funded through a NASA research grant relating to the MODIS sensor on the TERRA satellite.
The MPAA is notorious for missing the point. The perfect example is the NC-17 rating. This was supposed to be in addition to an X rating. X was for pornography while NC-17 was for explict, but not pornographic content. Eyes Wide Shut would have been a perfect candidate for an NC-17 rating.
However the MPAA, replace the X rating with the NC-17 rating. They didn't get the point. So now, there's still really only one rating for adult material regarless.
How does using a Soc. Sec. number limit illegal immigration? You don't have to be legally employable to get one. Technically, anyone who works, legally or illegally must have one.
There was actually a case in California a while back where an elected official had problems because they hadn't paid social security for a maid they had employed. And the maid was an illegal immigrant.
It looks like it was /.ed and pulled. Anyone have a copy they could put up?
It looks like this might have been a grey area, at least under Federal Law.
0 34.html
That was the purpose of the Wireless Privacy
Enhancement Act. It was supposed to make this illegal.
I can't find if this past or not though. Any body know?
It's mentioned a few place including here:
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/print/970804/inwk0
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1999/r2d2.html