Well, I think a huge part of the issue is that a lot of us did, and continue to, pay for the site in a very real way. Their entire business model up until being bought by 6A was having people pay them money in return for better service on the site, and they were paid money based on their original social contract.
I will go so far as to say that I wouldn't have bought my account if they hadn't committed themselves to never showing ads on the site. I was supporting the philosophy as much as I was getting more userpics.
Except he misses the point entirely, as do you, apparently. When X states "hardware is better" and you say "Graphics are worse" you've got a classic Apples vs. Oranges situation. Saying "WELL I REALLY LIKE ORANGES!" doesn't help prove "These apples are better than those apples" argument.
I'm glad to hear their sales have jumped. Hopefully this nips the whole "Gamecube is dead" article blight in the bud, since I was getting sick of people claiming that, despite the excellent games.
Amen. The Front Mission series has been one of the most consistently great bunch of games released anywhere. Front Mission 3, the only official American release of any of them, is in my opinion, the best tactical RPG for the PSX.
The two storylines, mech-building mode, and New Game+ features rounded out an excellent combat system and the game's own "internet."
The images I saw of the FM Online game made me wet my pants in anticipation.
I agree with you, wholeheartedly. You'll see my point is that these congressmen aren't willing to spend the money, just toss token amounts at NASA and demand results. They aren't willing to actually dedicate themselves to the goal of achieving it, by putting money and reputation on the line.
And a space station, and a base on Mars, and all the scientists, engineers, and grad students we'd need to perform all the research, and all the designs for everything involved.
Colonizing space is expensive, and requires an enormous output by every sector of society. We're already running short of actual, hirable engineers and scientists with the Mars program, where are the people for the Lunar colonization program? For the Mars colonization program? for the asteroid landing?
Accomplishing all of these tasks in the time mandated would require increased output from many sectors of society, and thus, a lot more money than they suggest towards it.
Except how do you market data collection? A friend of mine jokingly suggested putting small bombs on the space shuttle that randomly go off, maybe taking off someone's hand or disabling a vital system. Then excitement ensues! How will our brave astronauts make it home this time?
the NASA beauracracy is ridiculously expensive and incredibly stodgy and conservative, especially lately. More managers than engineers. JPL has become the same since the 80s, for reasons I don't understand. You can tell, too, just when it happened. The night Mars Observer crashed.
Ahhhhh okay. This makes a lot more sense now that I'm getting my head around it. I'm not sure how much less fuel is needed to send something back from Mars, but the challenge of creating a return vehicle capable of being set up and launching with only 9 people seems daunting.
If it could be done with $20 bn, though, I'd back this with every once of my being.
One program I really, really thought benefitted young people was Spaceset, a Space Settlement design competition for high schoolers and college students.
It really encourages a realistic, but exciting, view of space and development in space.
Right, but that's not the point. Why don't I do it? Because most "serious scientists" don't like the idea of manned spaceflight, especially considering the Columbia disaster (which my father worked on, back in his day).
I think manned space exploration is important, but these views aren't shared by my colleagues and supervisors, which is unsurprising, since JPL focuses mostly upon robotics and sensor technology, and I work with data, not engineering.
I think that mandating so many, disparate goals, like landing people on an asteroid, at the same time as designing the various spacecraft and habitation systems, will further dilute the $250 million that's being spent.
Precluding a tremendous drop in the cost per pound of payload, just launching a lot of this would be cost prohibitive. Nevermind that the current Mars lander cost $100 million this year alone. They want us to get a bigger space station up with $250 million?
If I was writing a realistic bill, I'd have it make a strict timeline of putting a space station, habitable full time, with room for expansion, at the L5 point over the next ten years, with similar budget allocations, and recommend that this be the primary mission of NASA during that time.
I think we could accomplish that, with current technology, safely and feasibly, even before that deadline, with the budget they're willing to put forward.
EXACTLY! And unless we set up and budget infrastructure on the way there, we risk doing another "one shot" mission like the Apollo missions were. We can't build off of the money we spent on them, because we didn't plan on anything afterwards. And having several "small goals" on the way to a big one, like colonizing the moon or Mars, reduces the spending of each individual mission.
The requirements of landing people on an asteroid, landing people on the moon, and landing people on Mars are all very different.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think a huge part of the issue is that a lot of us did, and continue to, pay for the site in a very real way. Their entire business model up until being bought by 6A was having people pay them money in return for better service on the site, and they were paid money based on their original social contract.
I will go so far as to say that I wouldn't have bought my account if they hadn't committed themselves to never showing ads on the site. I was supporting the philosophy as much as I was getting more userpics.
Friend of mine runs the site and he's ecstatic. No such thing as bad publicity, after all!
Except he misses the point entirely, as do you, apparently. When X states "hardware is better" and you say "Graphics are worse" you've got a classic Apples vs. Oranges situation. Saying "WELL I REALLY LIKE ORANGES!" doesn't help prove "These apples are better than those apples" argument.
skye
Critical failure of logic, core dump.
GURU MEDITATION #522640,8327468
Princess Rescuer.
And I even know what to say when she gives me lip!
"Excuuuuuuuuuse me, princess!"
Kidding!
I'm glad to hear their sales have jumped. Hopefully this nips the whole "Gamecube is dead" article blight in the bud, since I was getting sick of people claiming that, despite the excellent games.
skye
Amen. The Front Mission series has been one of the most consistently great bunch of games released anywhere. Front Mission 3, the only official American release of any of them, is in my opinion, the best tactical RPG for the PSX.
The two storylines, mech-building mode, and New Game+ features rounded out an excellent combat system and the game's own "internet."
The images I saw of the FM Online game made me wet my pants in anticipation.
skye
Yuffie wasn't nearly appreciated enough. Especially because she took Cloud on a date when no one else would...
skye
I did that in Chrono Trigger, too. It made for some priceless dialogue.
"I am not Glenn, I am Glenn!"
"So you mean Nadia is Princess Nadia?"
"R66-Y? You can come up with something better than that!"
"How about... R66-Y?"
"That's perfect!"
skye
Our overall spending, but NASA's current budget is 1.3 billion a year. This would make it 1.5 billion in 2 years.
skye
I agree with you, wholeheartedly. You'll see my point is that these congressmen aren't willing to spend the money, just toss token amounts at NASA and demand results. They aren't willing to actually dedicate themselves to the goal of achieving it, by putting money and reputation on the line.
skye
"we can colonize the mo[o]n for probably 10-20 billion"
So, praytell, where does the bill promise $10-20 billion? I only saw $250 mil.
skye
... It just never stops, does it?
skye
And a space station, and a base on Mars, and all the scientists, engineers, and grad students we'd need to perform all the research, and all the designs for everything involved.
Colonizing space is expensive, and requires an enormous output by every sector of society. We're already running short of actual, hirable engineers and scientists with the Mars program, where are the people for the Lunar colonization program? For the Mars colonization program? for the asteroid landing?
Accomplishing all of these tasks in the time mandated would require increased output from many sectors of society, and thus, a lot more money than they suggest towards it.
skye
This is brilliant! Add a rider onto the original bill, requiring gravity to have a permit before it acts on a mass.
skye
Except how do you market data collection? A friend of mine jokingly suggested putting small bombs on the space shuttle that randomly go off, maybe taking off someone's hand or disabling a vital system. Then excitement ensues! How will our brave astronauts make it home this time?
skye
Or that merely because I work for JPL doesn't mean I work for the Mars program.
skye
That's brilliant- I'll suggest it to our software guy.
skye
the NASA beauracracy is ridiculously expensive and incredibly stodgy and conservative, especially lately. More managers than engineers. JPL has become the same since the 80s, for reasons I don't understand. You can tell, too, just when it happened. The night Mars Observer crashed.
skye
Good luck getting $16 bn, though. Therein lies the inherent ridiculousity of the bill.
skye
Ahhhhh okay. This makes a lot more sense now that I'm getting my head around it. I'm not sure how much less fuel is needed to send something back from Mars, but the challenge of creating a return vehicle capable of being set up and launching with only 9 people seems daunting.
If it could be done with $20 bn, though, I'd back this with every once of my being.
skye
One program I really, really thought benefitted young people was Spaceset, a Space Settlement design competition for high schoolers and college students.
It really encourages a realistic, but exciting, view of space and development in space.
Right, but that's not the point. Why don't I do it? Because most "serious scientists" don't like the idea of manned spaceflight, especially considering the Columbia disaster (which my father worked on, back in his day).
I think manned space exploration is important, but these views aren't shared by my colleagues and supervisors, which is unsurprising, since JPL focuses mostly upon robotics and sensor technology, and I work with data, not engineering.
skye
I think that mandating so many, disparate goals, like landing people on an asteroid, at the same time as designing the various spacecraft and habitation systems, will further dilute the $250 million that's being spent.
Precluding a tremendous drop in the cost per pound of payload, just launching a lot of this would be cost prohibitive. Nevermind that the current Mars lander cost $100 million this year alone. They want us to get a bigger space station up with $250 million?
If I was writing a realistic bill, I'd have it make a strict timeline of putting a space station, habitable full time, with room for expansion, at the L5 point over the next ten years, with similar budget allocations, and recommend that this be the primary mission of NASA during that time.
I think we could accomplish that, with current technology, safely and feasibly, even before that deadline, with the budget they're willing to put forward.
skye
EXACTLY! And unless we set up and budget infrastructure on the way there, we risk doing another "one shot" mission like the Apollo missions were. We can't build off of the money we spent on them, because we didn't plan on anything afterwards. And having several "small goals" on the way to a big one, like colonizing the moon or Mars, reduces the spending of each individual mission.
The requirements of landing people on an asteroid, landing people on the moon, and landing people on Mars are all very different.
skye
You're absolutely right, it's my fault that NASA and JPL can't accomplish an impossible goal with $200 million a year.
Nevermind that they don't even have the budget to keep me on until the end of the year.
skye