"space weather" is a term used to refer to solar output fluctuation so the layman can understand it. It has more to do with radio and electronic systems on earth and in space than it does to earth-bound weather.
They can do anything they want. If you wanna try suing them for unfair dismissal, refer to your local laws (or consult a lawyer). But if you think you're being unfairly treated stand up for yourself.
Your analogy is too confusing for me. Let's say you find some code and it doesn't do what you want.. so you ask the people who work on it to add some improvements so it works for you. They ignore your request. So you ask again. They continue to ignore you. You have a big screaming fit and complain that no-one is listening to you and that everyone is unhelpful and you hate them. I think "douche" is too nice a word.
Sexting is a "phenomena" of prudes having to face the fact that not everyone experiences the same reservations as them about nudity. No-one is forcing them to participate.
And really, Obama's program is something of a bust - a modest amount of money, a booster with no mission (I smell pork),
You're kidding right? That's why the Congress critters are complaining, Obama is cutting out the pork. He's saying no to the jobs program.
and a capsule that might be adapted to have a mission at some date in the misty future. No clear goals, no timetables, no roadmaps nothing but warm fuzzy rhetoric.
And your complaints are out of date.. go watch the speech, there's your goals and dates.. the timetables and roadmaps and milestones will come when the FY11 budget passes.
I can only assume that you are a moron.. but let's try to educate you a little here. That 600 million metric tons that I said? That's approximately 1/100,000,000th of 1% of the mass of the Moon. So even if, over the period of hundreds of years, we cleared out the entire mass of the water ice that is expected to be at the north pole of the Moon, you next have to divide that by the square of the distance between the center of the Moon and the center of the Earth to get the effect of the change of the gravitational pull of the Moon on the Earth. It's less than the fluctuation of the solar output has on light pressure on the atmosphere. And, just for shits and giggles, you said "and brought it back to earth", which isn't the intention, there's plenty of water on Earth, there's no sense in bringing it back here.
The Moon has more water than we could use for the next 100 years. 600 million metric tons at the opposite pole to the one LCROSS crashed into.. probably similar amounts at the south pole too.
My argument would be that if we're going to the Moon to get resources to go somewhere else, which is what Dr Paul Spudis, the foremost expert (and jackass, but that's a personality trait, his ideas are great) on the Moon says we should, that's a great idea, but why would you do that with humans? Paul regularly talks about the comprehensive robotic precursor missions which would characterize the resources and prove the capability to get it and make propellant from it. Then in the next breath he talks about humans on the Moon. This kind of "find a justification for human spaceflight" thinking is common in the space community. If the goal of going to the Moon is to get resources to go elsewhere, just do that with robots. There's no need to build an ISS on the Moon unless that's the goal. There's nothing wrong with that goal, but it will take time and budget, and NASA is having enough trouble getting enough budget to do anything with just one ISS to support.
Overall, NASA's PR has been more horrid this year than I ever remember:) This budget rollout was broken. The President's speech was "ho hum", at least to me and other space cadets, I don't know how people who were completely unprepared received what he said. But he at least managed to give some people what they wanted: destinations and dates. Most likely not the ones they wanted, but at least the Apollo cargo cult can't moan about that tickbox being unchecked anymore. So now we wait to see how much Congress screws with the budget. If they trash it, Obama might veto it.. if they fiddle with it a little they might even improve it. We can wish.
And overall NASA needs to allocate some money to contracting PR people who know what they are doing, and actually listening to what they say... I'm sure it would be along the lines of "mission control is boring, STOP PUTTING IT ON NASA TV".
Yeah, "Asteroids" is easier for the public to understand.. barely. But whether it is an asteroid or a comet is a completely flexible decision. The NASA studies all refer to "Near Earth Objects" as you do.
ummm.. you're aware that the bulk of the money of the commercial crew program will be going to the same old contractors that have been sucking of the NASA teat since it was begun right? It's not like pork is a new thing.. the difference is that this time NASA might actually get their money worth (maybe). In the mean time, the COTS program continues (it was started under the previous administration) and, if successful, will be some of the most efficient money NASA have ever spent.
Did you completely miss what I said or what? No-one is "shooting for Mars first". Every suggestion of the milestones required to get to Mars, of a plan that has even has milestones (I'm looking at you Zubrin) has included a return to the Moon. The speech writer for Obama was simply trying to make the point that the surface of the Moon isn't the *next* place to go.. there's plenty of other places to go first.
Umm, no. To learn how to fly deep space missions (which, by definition are beyond the orbit of the Moon), you have to go further than the Moon. Sorry, that's just the way the real world works.. you can't learn how to ride a bike by buying a skateboard.
Yes, and I'm sure you could cut veteran's benefits to fund a Mars mission too... or neighborhood watch programs. (Both of which have been in direct competition with NASA funds in the past). But over here in the *real* world, that's not gunna happen.
Ares V development hasn't even started.. and ask Jeff Greason said "even if Santa Claus brought us the new program for xmas, we'd have to shut it down because we don't have the budget to operate it". The research is for *affordable* heavy lift. If you can't make heavy lift affordable (or as the codeword goes "sustainable") you have to do without it.. which is where the propellant depots and in-situ resource utilization comes in.
Slashdot Mirror
and? What's your call to action here?
http://quantumg.net/OhMaome.jpg
Been there since Mar 23 2008...
Come get me you extremist fucktards.
"space weather" is a term used to refer to solar output fluctuation so the layman can understand it. It has more to do with radio and electronic systems on earth and in space than it does to earth-bound weather.
They can do anything they want. If you wanna try suing them for unfair dismissal, refer to your local laws (or consult a lawyer). But if you think you're being unfairly treated stand up for yourself.
Your analogy is too confusing for me. Let's say you find some code and it doesn't do what you want.. so you ask the people who work on it to add some improvements so it works for you. They ignore your request. So you ask again. They continue to ignore you. You have a big screaming fit and complain that no-one is listening to you and that everyone is unhelpful and you hate them. I think "douche" is too nice a word.
This has nothing to do with children. The people in that Ad could be 40+ and these idiots would still have a problem with it.
People have bodies.. get over it.
Sexting is a "phenomena" of prudes having to face the fact that not everyone experiences the same reservations as them about nudity. No-one is forcing them to participate.
Sandra Bullock and Tom Cruise are doing a movie together? I'm not sure my gag reflex is strong enough for that.
Well go ahead then, name the non-military discretionary budget that isn't being cut.
Then you'd probably be indicted for treason if you got caught but hey.
I'm still waiting for the citation for Musk saying he wants to go to the Moon....
And really, Obama's program is something of a bust - a modest amount of money, a booster with no mission (I smell pork),
You're kidding right? That's why the Congress critters are complaining, Obama is cutting out the pork. He's saying no to the jobs program.
and a capsule that might be adapted to have a mission at some date in the misty future. No clear goals, no timetables, no roadmaps nothing but warm fuzzy rhetoric.
And your complaints are out of date.. go watch the speech, there's your goals and dates.. the timetables and roadmaps and milestones will come when the FY11 budget passes.
I can only assume that you are a moron.. but let's try to educate you a little here. That 600 million metric tons that I said? That's approximately 1/100,000,000th of 1% of the mass of the Moon. So even if, over the period of hundreds of years, we cleared out the entire mass of the water ice that is expected to be at the north pole of the Moon, you next have to divide that by the square of the distance between the center of the Moon and the center of the Earth to get the effect of the change of the gravitational pull of the Moon on the Earth. It's less than the fluctuation of the solar output has on light pressure on the atmosphere. And, just for shits and giggles, you said "and brought it back to earth", which isn't the intention, there's plenty of water on Earth, there's no sense in bringing it back here.
Yes, it is. Congress could cut it to zero tomorrow if they felt the need.
The Moon has more water than we could use for the next 100 years. 600 million metric tons at the opposite pole to the one LCROSS crashed into.. probably similar amounts at the south pole too.
My argument would be that if we're going to the Moon to get resources to go somewhere else, which is what Dr Paul Spudis, the foremost expert (and jackass, but that's a personality trait, his ideas are great) on the Moon says we should, that's a great idea, but why would you do that with humans? Paul regularly talks about the comprehensive robotic precursor missions which would characterize the resources and prove the capability to get it and make propellant from it. Then in the next breath he talks about humans on the Moon. This kind of "find a justification for human spaceflight" thinking is common in the space community. If the goal of going to the Moon is to get resources to go elsewhere, just do that with robots. There's no need to build an ISS on the Moon unless that's the goal. There's nothing wrong with that goal, but it will take time and budget, and NASA is having enough trouble getting enough budget to do anything with just one ISS to support.
Overall, NASA's PR has been more horrid this year than I ever remember :) This budget rollout was broken. The President's speech was "ho hum", at least to me and other space cadets, I don't know how people who were completely unprepared received what he said. But he at least managed to give some people what they wanted: destinations and dates. Most likely not the ones they wanted, but at least the Apollo cargo cult can't moan about that tickbox being unchecked anymore. So now we wait to see how much Congress screws with the budget. If they trash it, Obama might veto it.. if they fiddle with it a little they might even improve it. We can wish.
And overall NASA needs to allocate some money to contracting PR people who know what they are doing, and actually listening to what they say... I'm sure it would be along the lines of "mission control is boring, STOP PUTTING IT ON NASA TV".
Yeah, "Asteroids" is easier for the public to understand.. barely. But whether it is an asteroid or a comet is a completely flexible decision. The NASA studies all refer to "Near Earth Objects" as you do.
ummm.. you're aware that the bulk of the money of the commercial crew program will be going to the same old contractors that have been sucking of the NASA teat since it was begun right? It's not like pork is a new thing.. the difference is that this time NASA might actually get their money worth (maybe). In the mean time, the COTS program continues (it was started under the previous administration) and, if successful, will be some of the most efficient money NASA have ever spent.
[citation needed]
The Chinese have no interest in going to the Moon. They are planning a manned space station, to be completed by 2022.
No amount of screaming "the reds are under the beds!!" is going to bring back the unique set of cold war circumstances that made Apollo a success.
Did you completely miss what I said or what? No-one is "shooting for Mars first". Every suggestion of the milestones required to get to Mars, of a plan that has even has milestones (I'm looking at you Zubrin) has included a return to the Moon. The speech writer for Obama was simply trying to make the point that the surface of the Moon isn't the *next* place to go.. there's plenty of other places to go first.
Umm, no. To learn how to fly deep space missions (which, by definition are beyond the orbit of the Moon), you have to go further than the Moon. Sorry, that's just the way the real world works.. you can't learn how to ride a bike by buying a skateboard.
Yes, and I'm sure you could cut veteran's benefits to fund a Mars mission too... or neighborhood watch programs. (Both of which have been in direct competition with NASA funds in the past). But over here in the *real* world, that's not gunna happen.
Ares V development hasn't even started.. and ask Jeff Greason said "even if Santa Claus brought us the new program for xmas, we'd have to shut it down because we don't have the budget to operate it". The research is for *affordable* heavy lift. If you can't make heavy lift affordable (or as the codeword goes "sustainable") you have to do without it.. which is where the propellant depots and in-situ resource utilization comes in.