It seems there are three alternatives -- innumeracy makes peoples' lives better, worse, or doesn't affect them at all. In the 21st Century, arguments that it makes peoples' lives better, or doesn't affect them at all, would have to be pretty creative, so I think we can stipulate that it makes peoples' lives worse. We're then left to determine whether the worsening of their lives rises (falls?) to the point of ruination. To do this, one would have to take a random sample from a population of innumerates, determine the average quality of life of the sample, and perform a statistical hypothesis test, using the one-sample z-test . . . oh, wait.
We find that in the model species S. mediterranea, asexual animals demonstrate the potential to maintain telomere length during regeneration. Sexual animals appear to only lengthen their telomeres through the sexual reproduction process. This finding suggests that asexual individuals will be able to avoid senescence over evolutionary timescales using telomerase, a prerequisite for the formation of an evolutionarily stable fissionating asexual lineage. [. ..] The difference we observe between asexual and sexual animals is surprising, given that sexual animals also appear to have an indefinite regenerative capacity. We conclude that either they would eventually show effects of telomere shortening or that they are able to use another chromosome end-maintenance mechanism not involving telomerase. [emphasis added.]
So both sexual and asexual animals seem to have an indefinite regenerative capacity, but sexual animals appear not to lengthen their telomeres except through the sexual reproduction process. So how do the sexual animals attain their indefinite regenerative capacity, and why does the mechanism seem to be different from that of the asexual animals? I guess the next experiment is to start slicing up sexual animals.
I understand, but realize that "cat's eyes" in the context of roadway visibility is a meaningless term in the U.S. The term "Botts' dots" describes the item "performing a somewhat similar function" (quoting your link) on U.S. roadways.
Ah -- thanks, I misunderstood. It's still an interesting question, though: I'm sure the lights were not designed to be dimmed as they would be under this scheme. It would be interesting to see how much money is actually saved over time, once the increased wear on the lights due to the repetitive dimming and un-dimming is considered. (One has to worry about thermal cycling of the glass and glass-metal seals, not to mention lots of other effects.) How many more light replacements per year will now be required?
I'm sure the lights were not designed to be turned on and off as often as they would be under this scheme. It would be interesting to see how much money is actually saved over time, once the increased wear on the lights due to the frequent on-and-off cycling is considered. How many more light replacements per year will now be required?
In the US in the 1930s it was common for major cities to turn off traffic signals in the middle of the night, also to save money on electricity costs. The criminal element quickly learned to use these times for their getaways, since they could cross town quickly without attracting the notice one gets when running red lights (cf. The Valachi Papers).
I know there are few traffic signals on A roads but, as this is the UK, I can't decide whether "in for a penny, in for a pound" or "penny wise, pound foolish" is the more appropriate idiom.
The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.
What was meant (I think) was,
The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders, and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.
The first time through I had to do a re-parse, as I ended with an image of workers carrying a ladder under one arm and a bulldozer under the other.
Nobody said the microdots could only be used to stop counterfeiters. If that were true, this would be a non-issue. Modern digital copiers already have internal image-recognition software that refuses to copy something that resembles currency -- printers could too, and maybe already do, for all I know.
The problem is that the dots appear on more than just images that resemble currency. They appear on all printed documents, including those describing political opinions that may differ with those currently in power (whenever and whoever they may be), descriptions of your wife and daughter's medical conditions, your personal investments, etc. Leaving one's name off of one's document no longer makes it anonymous -- intentionally or otherwise -- to someone who knows the secret.
If you don't care about the microdots, I suggest that you don't print many of your political views. Saying unkind things about the EFF, for example, is trivial and even chic today, but neither of us knows how those views may be considered in the future. And don't do any favors for your friends -- anything you print for them would be traced back to you, not them.
I note in passing that the microdots are substantially invisible to the unaided eye, and I am willing to bet that not one member of the public in a hundred -- possibly a thousand -- knows they are there. The EFF is publicizing their presence, so that all citizens will know. How is this undemocratic?
A page showing New Horizons' location relative to the planets is here. Detailed ephemeris and other data on the probe can be obtained from NASA's HORIZONS system -- click on Target body "[change]", then enter "-98" in the search box.
Yep. And you will notice that they did not predict the intensity surge from Cat 3 to Cat 5: They only issued the "Doomsday" message in response to the storm's increase in intensity. It would have been nice if the surge were forecast a day or two earlier, so that a more orderly evacuation could be made.
If it had made landfall as a weak Category 3 -- especially if the high wind field was over a small area -- and the storm made landfall in a sparsely populated area, e.g., Franklin County, everyone in the more populated areas would have been greatly annoyed at the "false alarm" sent by the Weather Service. Since the NWS' Intensity forecasts can't predict eyewall replacement cycles, it had no way of knowing in advance whether a Cat 3 or Cat 5 storm would make landfall.
Um, sorry, but speak to your climatologist first. These storms are big, and the problem is that, when they come ashore, each location will experience a different wind profile. Thus there is no single "average" wind speed to forecast upon landfall -- every location will experience something different, and listing some kind of two-dimensional overall average of the storm isn't much help: Not only do the storms vary significantly in size, but the size of the eye varies significantly, too. To make matters still worse, there's a phenomenon called eyewall replacement, resulting in an effective eye diameter that varies in size over time (along with the maximum wind speed).
It is true that there will be a maximum wind speed in the storm, and that it will usually -- but not always -- be in the right side of the eye wall for storms in the northern hemisphere. However, at the moment there is no detailed forecast of the size of the area having those peak winds, so it's very difficult for emergency officials to plan for the devastated area.
Also speak to your climatologist about your misunderstandings about hurricane wind fields. They are rarely symmetrical, due to interactions with approaching weather fronts, other nearby storms, forward movement of the storm itself, and other factors. A truly symmetrical storm, like Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico, is notable because of its symmetry. The US Navy tropical storm forecasts include the radius of 34-, 50-, and 64-knot winds away from the center for each quadrant of the storm, and you will find differences of many tens of nautical miles between quadrants.
C'mon -- you can do better than that. Things can't get "a little more refined and predictable" if the phenomenon we are predicting is incompletely defined, to the point that no two people have the same understanding of the concept.
Besides, anyone who lives in hurricane zones is also well acquainted with the fact that the present intensity forecasts are terrible, which leads to cycles of over- and under-preparation by the populace. It would be nice if we could tell, say, three days in advance whether a Category 1 or a Category 4 storm were going to hit, so that we could determine the appropriate evacuation zone. At the moment such forecasts are not the paragon of reliability.
As TFA states, while the location predictions have been improving significantly, the best hurricane intensity predictions are only slightly better than what can be obtained from a Ouija board. (No offense intended to those in the field; I know it's a tough problem.)
Just defining "intensity" in a useful way can be difficult. For example, if Storm A has a region in the Northeast quadrant with 100 mph (161 km/h) winds, but elsewhere winds do not exceed 80 mph (129 km/h), and Storm B has 100 mph (161 km/h) winds in all four quadrants, both have the same max wind speed. Which is more intense? What if Storm B has 95 mph (153 km/h) winds in all four quadrants? What if the two storms have the same wind speeds, but are different sizes? If Storm C has lower wind speed than Storm D but, due to its slower forward speed or other reasons, drops five times as much rain, which one was the more intense storm?
When I counsel high school and college students, I always tell them to "work on important problems." Even though I make a point of saying that the definition of "important" is "what's important to you," I am always asked for examples of "important problems." Getting better hurricane intensity forecasts is one of the examples I always mention.
These are the days to which I refer. Read that speech. Note the minimal amount of nationalistic jingoism, and the upbeat, positive view of exploration. There's only a single, passing reference to the Soviet Union. Sure, there was a space race, but nobody liked NASA because of it. People liked NASA -- and NACA before it -- because of the X-15, because of the probes to Venus and Mars, and yes, because of the trips to the moon. NASA made people feel like they were part of human progress -- doing things that no human being in the history of the species had been able to do before.
And no, before you count the items on that page and say "that's all", it's not.
I'm really curious, now. Where do you get your belief that somewhere there is this fantastic research being done on the ISS? Is it faith-based, or do you have some facts somewhere? Why wouldn't the NASA web site you cite, trumpet the big news, instead of trivialities?
While I am disappointed in your belief that papers that aren't in the fields that you've studied are inscrutable to you -- a position I urge you to reconsider, if for no other reason than it limits your enjoyment of the journals Science and Nature -- let me accept that for the moment, and instead ask a "social engineering" question of you: If the ISS were the fantastic research tool that you believe it to be, wouldn't researchers around the world be clamoring to get their experiments on the ISS? Wouldn't there be position papers from, oh, the National Academy of Sciences and other such places, advocating that a second or even third ISS be built, promoting expansions for larger groups of researchers, and other such enhancements? If it's so great, where's the "pull" from the users to get more?
In case you think authors should hire a contract lawyer, let me tell you the vast bulk do make less than they would have made by working the same hours flipping burgers.
While it's certainly true that the vast bulk of authors do make less than they would have made by working the same hours flipping burgers, there's still significant money involved. It's the hours it takes to write a book that brings down the hourly rate.
My first visit to a contract attorney turned a profit for me. He reviewed the draft contract sent by the publisher and (because he knew what was usual and customary in the industry and I, a first-time author, did not) doubled the royalty percentages it offered. The modified contract was accepted without comment by the publisher, and the increase in first year's royalties alone, due to the attorney's work, more than paid his fee.
In addition to this, the attorney added clauses that stipulated what would happen in cases I had not considered -- for example, what would happen if the book were published in non-traditional media (only a theoretical possibility at the time, but most of my sales now) and how I would be compensated if the publisher bought the rights to the book, but never published it. Things like that.
In my opinion, people who sign business contracts without the advice of an attorney are taking a huge risk. Ask Eric Weisstein, author of Mathworld, about the dangers involved when an author signs a contract without consulting an attorney first.
Um, no. You are obviously too young to remember NASA when it actually had public support. At that time, the public didn't support it because it could demonstrate microgravity parlor tricks. They supported it because it, and its predecessor, NACA, were on the leading edge of human achievement -- making discoveries, setting records, and in general advancing the state of the art -- in almost everything they touched.
And apparently I need to repeat that
According to the original Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and RSA, the International Space Station was intended to be a laboratory, observatory and factory in space.
Fine so far, but can you recall three scientific discoveries made in the ISS? Even one? I can't.
It was also planned to provide transportation, maintenance, and act as a staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars and asteroids.
Seen any evidence that this is happening? I don't, and apparently the US government didn't either, because in order to continue to justify funding for the ISS,
In the 2010 United States National Space Policy, the ISS was given additional roles of serving commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes.
"Educational purposes" -- i.e., demonstration of known phenomena, e.g., Newtonian physics demonstrations for ten-year-olds -- is now an explicit role of the ISS.
I mean, what else comes out of it? You seem to think that the astronauts "spend most of their time doing experiments that are inscrutable to the general public," but have you actually looked for the published papers? Have you seen the research they're doing?
. . . but at one time, it was. Whether or not we agree that it is a massive corporate welfare system, at one time NASA did do something constructive. Now, they can't even launch an astronaut.
The space program has NEVER been about being a grand endeavor to explore the universe. It isn't now, and has never been in the entire global history of space programs. They've been about politics, they've been about national security, they've been about national pride. They've *never* been about exploration.
Exploration is always about politics, even if the explorers are not, because whatever is discovered will affect the political balance back home. Even the "Age of Exploration" in the 1400s-1600s was fueled largely by governments, government grants, and government charters of independent companies (e.g., Hudson's Bay Company). The point is, exploration did occur during this time. If you think space exploration is occurring today, we have a different definition of the word, "is."
Okay, let's assume for purposes of exposition that you're right. Educate me: What are the goals of the present mission? If you need help in starting, try the ISS Wikipedia article:
According to the original Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and RSA, the International Space Station was intended to be a laboratory, observatory and factory in space. It was also planned to provide transportation, maintenance, and act as a staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars and asteroids. In the 2010 United States National Space Policy, the ISS was given additional roles of serving commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes.
I posit that anything that has that many diverse purposes actually serves no purpose at all -- and certainly isn't inspirational.
This is the kind of news that saddens me. The grand endeavor to explore the universe that I knew as a kid has turned into, well, basically nothing at all, and the astronauts that once went where no one had gone before have turned into Mr. Wizards doing Newtonian physics demonstrations for ten-year-olds. I mean, the off-the-cuff demonstrations of floating pencils one saw in the Apollo program videos, in between doing stuff like developing space rendezvous techniques and going to the moon, have turned into the raison d'etre of the space program.
Well, I don't know, Mr. AC. To which "people" do you refer? Most "people" I know in astronomy define an "aperture" in the same way Wikipedia does:
[T]he aperture stop is the stop that determines the ray cone angle, or equivalently the brightness, at an image point.
In some contexts, especially in photography and astronomy, aperture refers to the diameter of the aperture stop rather than the physical stop or the opening itself. For example, in a telescope the aperture stop is typically the edges of the objective lens or mirror (or of the mount that holds it). One then speaks of a telescope as having, for example, a 100 centimeter aperture. [emphasis added]
Most astronomers I know actually would, in fact, tell you that aperture masking turns a 10m aperture into a cm-range aperture, since the sensitivity of the resulting telescope would be that of one having a much smaller diameter. That's how most cameras work . . . f-stops, anyone?
Strictly speaking, the usual use of the word "aperture" in astronomy actually means, "diameter of a circular aperture have equivalent area," since that telescope would be of equivalent sensitivity. Saying the Chilean interferometer has an aperture of 130m is saying that the diameter of its aperture stop is 130m, which is saying that it has the sensitivity of a solid 130m-diameter aperture, which isn't true. In fact, without assuming a shape and orientation for the mask (aperture stop), saying a telescope has an aperture of X meters is a meaningless statement.
There may be an astronomical context in which the strict definition of aperture, as you are using it, is common, but I'm unaware of it. Perhaps those doing the interferometric mathematics define it this way.
Slashdot Mirror
When I meet a temptress, she rarely says, "You could be on YouTube now."
Startup wants to peek through the wired cameras in your home, sell the data
Wait, wait. Could we go back and cover the part about why I would want them to do this, again?
It seems there are three alternatives -- innumeracy makes peoples' lives better, worse, or doesn't affect them at all. In the 21st Century, arguments that it makes peoples' lives better, or doesn't affect them at all, would have to be pretty creative, so I think we can stipulate that it makes peoples' lives worse. We're then left to determine whether the worsening of their lives rises (falls?) to the point of ruination. To do this, one would have to take a random sample from a population of innumerates, determine the average quality of life of the sample, and perform a statistical hypothesis test, using the one-sample z-test . . . oh, wait.
From the Discussion section of the linked paper:
We find that in the model species S. mediterranea, asexual animals demonstrate the potential to maintain telomere length during regeneration. Sexual animals appear to only lengthen their telomeres through the sexual reproduction process. This finding suggests that asexual individuals will be able to avoid senescence over evolutionary timescales using telomerase, a prerequisite for the formation of an evolutionarily stable fissionating asexual lineage. [. . .] The difference we observe between asexual and sexual animals is surprising, given that sexual animals also appear to have an indefinite regenerative capacity. We conclude that either they would eventually show effects of telomere shortening or that they are able to use another chromosome end-maintenance mechanism not involving telomerase. [emphasis added.]
So both sexual and asexual animals seem to have an indefinite regenerative capacity, but sexual animals appear not to lengthen their telomeres except through the sexual reproduction process. So how do the sexual animals attain their indefinite regenerative capacity, and why does the mechanism seem to be different from that of the asexual animals? I guess the next experiment is to start slicing up sexual animals.
I understand, but realize that "cat's eyes" in the context of roadway visibility is a meaningless term in the U.S. The term "Botts' dots" describes the item "performing a somewhat similar function" (quoting your link) on U.S. roadways.
Ah -- thanks, I misunderstood. It's still an interesting question, though: I'm sure the lights were not designed to be dimmed as they would be under this scheme. It would be interesting to see how much money is actually saved over time, once the increased wear on the lights due to the repetitive dimming and un-dimming is considered. (One has to worry about thermal cycling of the glass and glass-metal seals, not to mention lots of other effects.) How many more light replacements per year will now be required?
Never heard of cat's eyes?
As an aid to international understanding, I note that in the U.S. these are called Botts' dots.
I'm sure the lights were not designed to be turned on and off as often as they would be under this scheme. It would be interesting to see how much money is actually saved over time, once the increased wear on the lights due to the frequent on-and-off cycling is considered. How many more light replacements per year will now be required?
In the US in the 1930s it was common for major cities to turn off traffic signals in the middle of the night, also to save money on electricity costs. The criminal element quickly learned to use these times for their getaways, since they could cross town quickly without attracting the notice one gets when running red lights (cf. The Valachi Papers).
I know there are few traffic signals on A roads but, as this is the UK, I can't decide whether "in for a penny, in for a pound" or "penny wise, pound foolish" is the more appropriate idiom.
What was written (p.2) was,
The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.
What was meant (I think) was,
The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders, and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.
The first time through I had to do a re-parse, as I ended with an image of workers carrying a ladder under one arm and a bulldozer under the other.
Nobody said the microdots could only be used to stop counterfeiters. If that were true, this would be a non-issue. Modern digital copiers already have internal image-recognition software that refuses to copy something that resembles currency -- printers could too, and maybe already do, for all I know.
The problem is that the dots appear on more than just images that resemble currency. They appear on all printed documents, including those describing political opinions that may differ with those currently in power (whenever and whoever they may be), descriptions of your wife and daughter's medical conditions, your personal investments, etc. Leaving one's name off of one's document no longer makes it anonymous -- intentionally or otherwise -- to someone who knows the secret.
If you don't care about the microdots, I suggest that you don't print many of your political views. Saying unkind things about the EFF, for example, is trivial and even chic today, but neither of us knows how those views may be considered in the future. And don't do any favors for your friends -- anything you print for them would be traced back to you, not them.
I note in passing that the microdots are substantially invisible to the unaided eye, and I am willing to bet that not one member of the public in a hundred -- possibly a thousand -- knows they are there. The EFF is publicizing their presence, so that all citizens will know. How is this undemocratic?
Faster? Than the speed of light?!?
A page showing New Horizons' location relative to the planets is here. Detailed ephemeris and other data on the probe can be obtained from NASA's HORIZONS system -- click on Target body "[change]", then enter "-98" in the search box.
Yep. And you will notice that they did not predict the intensity surge from Cat 3 to Cat 5: They only issued the "Doomsday" message in response to the storm's increase in intensity. It would have been nice if the surge were forecast a day or two earlier, so that a more orderly evacuation could be made.
If it had made landfall as a weak Category 3 -- especially if the high wind field was over a small area -- and the storm made landfall in a sparsely populated area, e.g., Franklin County, everyone in the more populated areas would have been greatly annoyed at the "false alarm" sent by the Weather Service. Since the NWS' Intensity forecasts can't predict eyewall replacement cycles, it had no way of knowing in advance whether a Cat 3 or Cat 5 storm would make landfall.
It doesn't seem that bad.
Um, sorry, but speak to your climatologist first. These storms are big, and the problem is that, when they come ashore, each location will experience a different wind profile. Thus there is no single "average" wind speed to forecast upon landfall -- every location will experience something different, and listing some kind of two-dimensional overall average of the storm isn't much help: Not only do the storms vary significantly in size, but the size of the eye varies significantly, too. To make matters still worse, there's a phenomenon called eyewall replacement, resulting in an effective eye diameter that varies in size over time (along with the maximum wind speed).
It is true that there will be a maximum wind speed in the storm, and that it will usually -- but not always -- be in the right side of the eye wall for storms in the northern hemisphere. However, at the moment there is no detailed forecast of the size of the area having those peak winds, so it's very difficult for emergency officials to plan for the devastated area.
Also speak to your climatologist about your misunderstandings about hurricane wind fields. They are rarely symmetrical, due to interactions with approaching weather fronts, other nearby storms, forward movement of the storm itself, and other factors. A truly symmetrical storm, like Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico, is notable because of its symmetry. The US Navy tropical storm forecasts include the radius of 34-, 50-, and 64-knot winds away from the center for each quadrant of the storm, and you will find differences of many tens of nautical miles between quadrants.
No one cares.
C'mon -- you can do better than that. Things can't get "a little more refined and predictable" if the phenomenon we are predicting is incompletely defined, to the point that no two people have the same understanding of the concept.
Besides, anyone who lives in hurricane zones is also well acquainted with the fact that the present intensity forecasts are terrible, which leads to cycles of over- and under-preparation by the populace. It would be nice if we could tell, say, three days in advance whether a Category 1 or a Category 4 storm were going to hit, so that we could determine the appropriate evacuation zone. At the moment such forecasts are not the paragon of reliability.
As TFA states, while the location predictions have been improving significantly, the best hurricane intensity predictions are only slightly better than what can be obtained from a Ouija board. (No offense intended to those in the field; I know it's a tough problem.)
Just defining "intensity" in a useful way can be difficult. For example, if Storm A has a region in the Northeast quadrant with 100 mph (161 km/h) winds, but elsewhere winds do not exceed 80 mph (129 km/h), and Storm B has 100 mph (161 km/h) winds in all four quadrants, both have the same max wind speed. Which is more intense? What if Storm B has 95 mph (153 km/h) winds in all four quadrants? What if the two storms have the same wind speeds, but are different sizes? If Storm C has lower wind speed than Storm D but, due to its slower forward speed or other reasons, drops five times as much rain, which one was the more intense storm?
When I counsel high school and college students, I always tell them to "work on important problems." Even though I make a point of saying that the definition of "important" is "what's important to you," I am always asked for examples of "important problems." Getting better hurricane intensity forecasts is one of the examples I always mention.
Those days are over and good riddance.
These are the days to which I refer. Read that speech. Note the minimal amount of nationalistic jingoism, and the upbeat, positive view of exploration. There's only a single, passing reference to the Soviet Union. Sure, there was a space race, but nobody liked NASA because of it. People liked NASA -- and NACA before it -- because of the X-15, because of the probes to Venus and Mars, and yes, because of the trips to the moon. NASA made people feel like they were part of human progress -- doing things that no human being in the history of the species had been able to do before.
And no, before you count the items on that page and say "that's all", it's not.
I'm really curious, now. Where do you get your belief that somewhere there is this fantastic research being done on the ISS? Is it faith-based, or do you have some facts somewhere? Why wouldn't the NASA web site you cite, trumpet the big news, instead of trivialities?
While I am disappointed in your belief that papers that aren't in the fields that you've studied are inscrutable to you -- a position I urge you to reconsider, if for no other reason than it limits your enjoyment of the journals Science and Nature -- let me accept that for the moment, and instead ask a "social engineering" question of you: If the ISS were the fantastic research tool that you believe it to be, wouldn't researchers around the world be clamoring to get their experiments on the ISS? Wouldn't there be position papers from, oh, the National Academy of Sciences and other such places, advocating that a second or even third ISS be built, promoting expansions for larger groups of researchers, and other such enhancements? If it's so great, where's the "pull" from the users to get more?
In case you think authors should hire a contract lawyer, let me tell you the vast bulk do make less than they would have made by working the same hours flipping burgers.
While it's certainly true that the vast bulk of authors do make less than they would have made by working the same hours flipping burgers, there's still significant money involved. It's the hours it takes to write a book that brings down the hourly rate.
My first visit to a contract attorney turned a profit for me. He reviewed the draft contract sent by the publisher and (because he knew what was usual and customary in the industry and I, a first-time author, did not) doubled the royalty percentages it offered. The modified contract was accepted without comment by the publisher, and the increase in first year's royalties alone, due to the attorney's work, more than paid his fee.
In addition to this, the attorney added clauses that stipulated what would happen in cases I had not considered -- for example, what would happen if the book were published in non-traditional media (only a theoretical possibility at the time, but most of my sales now) and how I would be compensated if the publisher bought the rights to the book, but never published it. Things like that.
In my opinion, people who sign business contracts without the advice of an attorney are taking a huge risk. Ask Eric Weisstein, author of Mathworld, about the dangers involved when an author signs a contract without consulting an attorney first.
Um, no. You are obviously too young to remember NASA when it actually had public support. At that time, the public didn't support it because it could demonstrate microgravity parlor tricks. They supported it because it, and its predecessor, NACA, were on the leading edge of human achievement -- making discoveries, setting records, and in general advancing the state of the art -- in almost everything they touched.
And apparently I need to repeat that
According to the original Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and RSA, the International Space Station was intended to be a laboratory, observatory and factory in space.
Fine so far, but can you recall three scientific discoveries made in the ISS? Even one? I can't.
It was also planned to provide transportation, maintenance, and act as a staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars and asteroids.
Seen any evidence that this is happening? I don't, and apparently the US government didn't either, because in order to continue to justify funding for the ISS,
In the 2010 United States National Space Policy, the ISS was given additional roles of serving commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes.
"Educational purposes" -- i.e., demonstration of known phenomena, e.g., Newtonian physics demonstrations for ten-year-olds -- is now an explicit role of the ISS.
I mean, what else comes out of it? You seem to think that the astronauts "spend most of their time doing experiments that are inscrutable to the general public," but have you actually looked for the published papers? Have you seen the research they're doing?
. . . but at one time, it was. Whether or not we agree that it is a massive corporate welfare system, at one time NASA did do something constructive. Now, they can't even launch an astronaut.
The space program has NEVER been about being a grand endeavor to explore the universe. It isn't now, and has never been in the entire global history of space programs. They've been about politics, they've been about national security, they've been about national pride. They've *never* been about exploration.
Exploration is always about politics, even if the explorers are not, because whatever is discovered will affect the political balance back home. Even the "Age of Exploration" in the 1400s-1600s was fueled largely by governments, government grants, and government charters of independent companies (e.g., Hudson's Bay Company). The point is, exploration did occur during this time. If you think space exploration is occurring today, we have a different definition of the word, "is."
Okay, let's assume for purposes of exposition that you're right. Educate me: What are the goals of the present mission? If you need help in starting, try the ISS Wikipedia article:
According to the original Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and RSA, the International Space Station was intended to be a laboratory, observatory and factory in space. It was also planned to provide transportation, maintenance, and act as a staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars and asteroids. In the 2010 United States National Space Policy, the ISS was given additional roles of serving commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes.
I posit that anything that has that many diverse purposes actually serves no purpose at all -- and certainly isn't inspirational.
This is the kind of news that saddens me. The grand endeavor to explore the universe that I knew as a kid has turned into, well, basically nothing at all, and the astronauts that once went where no one had gone before have turned into Mr. Wizards doing Newtonian physics demonstrations for ten-year-olds. I mean, the off-the-cuff demonstrations of floating pencils one saw in the Apollo program videos, in between doing stuff like developing space rendezvous techniques and going to the moon, have turned into the raison d'etre of the space program.
I am depressed.
Well, I don't know, Mr. AC. To which "people" do you refer? Most "people" I know in astronomy define an "aperture" in the same way Wikipedia does:
[T]he aperture stop is the stop that determines the ray cone angle, or equivalently the brightness, at an image point.
In some contexts, especially in photography and astronomy, aperture refers to the diameter of the aperture stop rather than the physical stop or the opening itself. For example, in a telescope the aperture stop is typically the edges of the objective lens or mirror (or of the mount that holds it). One then speaks of a telescope as having, for example, a 100 centimeter aperture. [emphasis added]
Most astronomers I know actually would, in fact, tell you that aperture masking turns a 10m aperture into a cm-range aperture, since the sensitivity of the resulting telescope would be that of one having a much smaller diameter. That's how most cameras work . . . f-stops, anyone?
Strictly speaking, the usual use of the word "aperture" in astronomy actually means, "diameter of a circular aperture have equivalent area," since that telescope would be of equivalent sensitivity. Saying the Chilean interferometer has an aperture of 130m is saying that the diameter of its aperture stop is 130m, which is saying that it has the sensitivity of a solid 130m-diameter aperture, which isn't true. In fact, without assuming a shape and orientation for the mask (aperture stop), saying a telescope has an aperture of X meters is a meaningless statement.
There may be an astronomical context in which the strict definition of aperture, as you are using it, is common, but I'm unaware of it. Perhaps those doing the interferometric mathematics define it this way.