NASA tried this impact project with Lunar Prospector in 1999. But it did not lead to any substantial ejection of water vapor off the impact point. No water vapor was observed with the Hubble/STIS (spectrograph). I believe (have not RFTA) that NASA wants to do it right with a proper impactor at this time.
Part of the reason that the Lunar Prospector was not as successful as hoped in throwing up some H20 was because the impactor was relatively light (~150 kg) and had a very shallow grazing angle. It literally "just scratched the surface".
On the other hand LCROSS will impact with something like 2000 kg at a very steep impact angle and is estimated to create a new crater 100 yd wide and 16 ft deep. That's kicking up a lot of regolith! (which would, incidentally, be a good name for a rock band)
A lot of conservatives feel let down by Bush, for any number of reasons - growth of government, spending increases,
This one has been popular a lot lately... liberals love to point out how much the government has grown under the Bush administration and how that is contrary to the traditional notion that conservatives are against "big government". As a conservative, the growth of the government does bother me - but this is no way makes me more likely to vote for a Democrat. Why? Because for each of the entitlements that are increasing, the Democrats fought hard for the government to spend even more money than was actually legislated! What do the Dems complain about regarding 'No Child Left Behind'? That's right... it isn't funded enough. How about the prescription drug plan? Not big enough! What about homeland security and hurricane relief? That's right! Not enough money for infrastructure renovation.
Personally, I think the Dems have some merits to some of their calls... but they don't and never have stood for a smaller governement than the Republicans.
If you ask me, the real reason the government is getting too big is that the Republicans are not being partisan enough and are compromising too much with the Democrats to actually get bills passed so they can't be branded "do nothing". Yet that hasn't stopped the Dem leadership for claiming they routinely get 'railroaded'.
Of course, this means that President Bush keeping us out of Kyoto might have saved us all from certain doom.
Alternately you could find the 95 US Senators who unnimously voted to not consider the treaty in its current form during the Clinton administration, but hey... if you want to blame this one on Bush...go ahead.
Well from the perspective of most people outside the U.S.A., Americans seem to be happy with a powerful, corrupt government controlled by corporate and military interests.
Of course that is possible... but it is also possible that foreigners are misinformed. Which is more likely? If I believed half of what I read in the Guardian, I'd hate America too.
I have extensive experience with military UAVs and can address at least a couple of these. Currently the military does control smaller UAVs without rated pilots at the controls provided the UAVs stay within restricted airspace. For Global Hawk, which primarily operates within the FAS but above the jetways, there exists an agreement (COA) that requires the pilots to be commercial-instrument rated. Climbs and descents to/from altitude occur within restricted airspace, but once above, the GH can pretty much go wherever (subject to the same restrictions placed on any other high-altitude aircraft, IFR aircraft). Oh, and the GH pilots are required to fly manned aircraft as well to maintain their proficiency as per the FARs.
And by the same token, the Administration and Congress had nothing to do with the Patriot act because it is used by local law enforcement.
This statement, while true, has nothing to do with law enforcement using new tools to conduct surveillance. Law enforcement can currently use wiretaps, undercover agents, keyloggers, and manned aircraft to conduct lawful surveillance. I don't understand what is the difference between using a helicopter for surveillance and a UAV. It is simply a modernization of technology. You know all those signs that say "Speed Limit Enforced by Aircraft"? Does it really matter if it is a manned aircraft or a remotely piloted aircraft?
plus possible warrantless (i.e. based on the administration's whim) wiretapping of just about any phone conversation in the US.
But there is absolutely zero proof of this. The notion that this could be happening is, as you point out, purely speculation based on the fact that there is acknowledged, warrantless surveillance of calls that sometimes terminate within the US and that a government that can do that could also be spying on purely domestic calls.
I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?
Because if you had read the article, you'd have known that this has nothing to do with the military. It is the police who want this capability, and last I checked, the police have the Constitutional authority to conduct surveillance. By the way, the act you are referring to is called Posse Comitatus
As for this comment:
First it was the domestic wiretap issue
Calling that surveillance "domestic wiretap" is very misleading. Much more accurate (but less inflamatory which is why no-one seems to be running with it) would be something like: "warrantless wiretapping of international calls on known terrorists channels [read numbers] even if the call terminates or originates within the United States" Not saying it's right... just more accurate. I recently saw a poll in which 25% of Americans thought that they had been spied on by the government as a result of this "domestic wiretap" policy. That's just ridiculous/paranoid/misinformed.
Makes me puke that we don't even want to keep the freedom of speech around in the US but it makes sense why it had to be legislated.
Who's trying to take away our freedom of speech? The only thing I can think of is that you must be referring to campaign finance reform. Please enlighten us.
I fully agree. We began with some baby signs at about six months but only a few critical words (milk, more, food, finished, etc...) Nothing happened at all for months, then one day he started signing. It was a huge relief because up until that point, he could be a very frustrated baby (usually around meals) and we never knew if he wanted more or if he was done. Once he started signing, his frustration greatly diminished. His speach was maybe a few months later than some of his friends, but then it exploded and is way, way beyond his age level.
Interestingly, although we stopped signing with him once he started using words, he still occassionally uses the signs for "more" and "finished" as he speaks those words (he is now 3.5 yrs old). He only does this when he really is trying to emphasize his point and seems to be doing it subconciously (if you ask him what the sign means out of context he doesn't know).
Now we just have to fight "if you're not doing anything bad, you've nothing to hide" -- in a country such as ours, that is heresy against our constitution and the people who live under it.
How can this be against the constitution if no ones rights are being violated? The government is not seizing data, they are subpoenaing it - a legal process clearly within the framework of our legal system . The real question is whether or not the government has a genuine need for the data in support of its case.
Our general need of having privacy and not being exposed to the world is a natural one and must be protected at all costs.
Whose privacy is is being violated and who is being "exposed" by google turning over search terms that are not in any way linked to an individual or ip address? Never mind the fact that like it or not, there is no right to privacy in the consitution.
If google cared one iota for the rights of its users, it wouldn't be censoring the search results of Chinese users. I suspect that google's resistance to this subpoena is two-fold: they clearly don't like the general public to precisely how much information about our browsing habits they retain and secondly, they are probably (rightly) worried that the type of information the government wants could enable their competitors to have insight into how their algorithm works.
I still have nightmares about the firescout (was that what it was called?) I'm assuming you know this already but for ACQ-201, I think you can skip through all the slides, open the summary in a new window and take the test while searching for the keywords in the lesson summary to find the answers. ACQ-201B actually isn't that bad.
Yes, the increase may be small, but keep in mind that before the Bush presidency, NASA's budget in 1996 dollars was in a decline (to the tune of 18% over the course of the Clinton administration). Not only is Bush increasing the budget, he reversed a long negative trend.
Yup.. when red book hoax was revealed there was a story about it somewhere about how hoaxes can flourish on the net. I submitted it as a story to slashdot, pointing out how slashdot itself was a great example of this occurring given the nature of the comments when the red book story was "reported" - of course my submission was rejected.
Yup... I was droning on about cryogenic and thinking about the cold which had caused that mishap. Of course, it had nothing to do with the liquid propellant, but rather the cold morning... good catch!
No, it just sounds fishy. Either the story is made up, or there's a long backstory here that we're not getting. Otherwise this surveillance would appear to be basically random (targetting some people who make payments like this but not others), in which case they may as well just close their eyes, open a phone book and point to get their latest victim. Why even bother?
What? Slashdot jump on a story that is based on the "victim's" statements and makes the government look bad and ends up being a hoax? Say it isn't so!!!
Also, LOX/Hydrogen are cryogenic which means that they must be maintained at extremely cold temperatures. This necessitates all sorts of additional requirements such as more robust seals (Challenger) and insultating foam (Columbia) on the external tanks. Moreover, there is a huge logistics and support footprint for cryogenic fuels. They must be stored near the launch site and the spacecraft fueled immediately prior to launch and de-fueled if there is an abort. This further constrains flexibility of operations. In other words, while the Isp is much higher for cryos, there are other factors that in some cases trump the extra power per mass of propellant.
Also, the attacks in Madrid and London happened while the Patriot Act was in full force (and the illegal wiretapping was already going on). How come they were not prevented?
Oh! Oh! I know! I know!... because Spain and England aren't subject to US Legislation?!?!
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the reason that the Lunar Prospector was not as successful as hoped in throwing up some H20 was because the impactor was relatively light (~150 kg) and had a very shallow grazing angle. It literally "just scratched the surface".
On the other hand LCROSS will impact with something like 2000 kg at a very steep impact angle and is estimated to create a new crater 100 yd wide and 16 ft deep. That's kicking up a lot of regolith! (which would, incidentally, be a good name for a rock band)
This one has been popular a lot lately... liberals love to point out how much the government has grown under the Bush administration and how that is contrary to the traditional notion that conservatives are against "big government". As a conservative, the growth of the government does bother me - but this is no way makes me more likely to vote for a Democrat. Why? Because for each of the entitlements that are increasing, the Democrats fought hard for the government to spend even more money than was actually legislated! What do the Dems complain about regarding 'No Child Left Behind'? That's right... it isn't funded enough. How about the prescription drug plan? Not big enough! What about homeland security and hurricane relief? That's right! Not enough money for infrastructure renovation.
Personally, I think the Dems have some merits to some of their calls... but they don't and never have stood for a smaller governement than the Republicans.
If you ask me, the real reason the government is getting too big is that the Republicans are not being partisan enough and are compromising too much with the Democrats to actually get bills passed so they can't be branded "do nothing". Yet that hasn't stopped the Dem leadership for claiming they routinely get 'railroaded'.
Alternately you could find the 95 US Senators who unnimously voted to not consider the treaty in its current form during the Clinton administration, but hey... if you want to blame this one on Bush...go ahead.
oh! oh! Can I suggest a name?! Can we call this new innovation an "atmosphere"?
One of the funniest I have read in a while. Submitted it to Wikiquote
Of course that is possible... but it is also possible that foreigners are misinformed. Which is more likely? If I believed half of what I read in the Guardian, I'd hate America too.
I have extensive experience with military UAVs and can address at least a couple of these. Currently the military does control smaller UAVs without rated pilots at the controls provided the UAVs stay within restricted airspace. For Global Hawk, which primarily operates within the FAS but above the jetways, there exists an agreement (COA) that requires the pilots to be commercial-instrument rated. Climbs and descents to/from altitude occur within restricted airspace, but once above, the GH can pretty much go wherever (subject to the same restrictions placed on any other high-altitude aircraft, IFR aircraft). Oh, and the GH pilots are required to fly manned aircraft as well to maintain their proficiency as per the FARs.
This statement, while true, has nothing to do with law enforcement using new tools to conduct surveillance. Law enforcement can currently use wiretaps, undercover agents, keyloggers, and manned aircraft to conduct lawful surveillance. I don't understand what is the difference between using a helicopter for surveillance and a UAV. It is simply a modernization of technology. You know all those signs that say "Speed Limit Enforced by Aircraft"? Does it really matter if it is a manned aircraft or a remotely piloted aircraft?
But there is absolutely zero proof of this. The notion that this could be happening is, as you point out, purely speculation based on the fact that there is acknowledged, warrantless surveillance of calls that sometimes terminate within the US and that a government that can do that could also be spying on purely domestic calls.
Because if you had read the article, you'd have known that this has nothing to do with the military. It is the police who want this capability, and last I checked, the police have the Constitutional authority to conduct surveillance. By the way, the act you are referring to is called Posse Comitatus
As for this comment:
Calling that surveillance "domestic wiretap" is very misleading. Much more accurate (but less inflamatory which is why no-one seems to be running with it) would be something like: "warrantless wiretapping of international calls on known terrorists channels [read numbers] even if the call terminates or originates within the United States" Not saying it's right... just more accurate. I recently saw a poll in which 25% of Americans thought that they had been spied on by the government as a result of this "domestic wiretap" policy. That's just ridiculous/paranoid/misinformed.
Who's trying to take away our freedom of speech? The only thing I can think of is that you must be referring to campaign finance reform. Please enlighten us.
Interestingly, although we stopped signing with him once he started using words, he still occassionally uses the signs for "more" and "finished" as he speaks those words (he is now 3.5 yrs old). He only does this when he really is trying to emphasize his point and seems to be doing it subconciously (if you ask him what the sign means out of context he doesn't know).
How can this be against the constitution if no ones rights are being violated? The government is not seizing data, they are subpoenaing it - a legal process clearly within the framework of our legal system . The real question is whether or not the government has a genuine need for the data in support of its case.
Our general need of having privacy and not being exposed to the world is a natural one and must be protected at all costs.
Whose privacy is is being violated and who is being "exposed" by google turning over search terms that are not in any way linked to an individual or ip address? Never mind the fact that like it or not, there is no right to privacy in the consitution.
If google cared one iota for the rights of its users, it wouldn't be censoring the search results of Chinese users. I suspect that google's resistance to this subpoena is two-fold: they clearly don't like the general public to precisely how much information about our browsing habits they retain and secondly, they are probably (rightly) worried that the type of information the government wants could enable their competitors to have insight into how their algorithm works.
I still have nightmares about the firescout (was that what it was called?) I'm assuming you know this already but for ACQ-201, I think you can skip through all the slides, open the summary in a new window and take the test while searching for the keywords in the lesson summary to find the answers. ACQ-201B actually isn't that bad.
Dude, I'm already in DAWAII hell this week (taking SYS-201B)... what...are you trying to kill me this morning?!
Gov't sole access to technology? Just make one of these!
According to this story... it has two USB ports.
That is because presidents can't balance the budget. Congress can, and a Republican congress has.
Well there is your problem, you are under the misconception that the Air Force is a military organization.
Fly Navy
Yes, the increase may be small, but keep in mind that before the Bush presidency, NASA's budget in 1996 dollars was in a decline (to the tune of 18% over the course of the Clinton administration). Not only is Bush increasing the budget, he reversed a long negative trend.
Yup.. when red book hoax was revealed there was a story about it somewhere about how hoaxes can flourish on the net. I submitted it as a story to slashdot, pointing out how slashdot itself was a great example of this occurring given the nature of the comments when the red book story was "reported" - of course my submission was rejected.
Yup... I was droning on about cryogenic and thinking about the cold which had caused that mishap. Of course, it had nothing to do with the liquid propellant, but rather the cold morning... good catch!
What? Slashdot jump on a story that is based on the "victim's" statements and makes the government look bad and ends up being a hoax? Say it isn't so!!!
Also, LOX/Hydrogen are cryogenic which means that they must be maintained at extremely cold temperatures. This necessitates all sorts of additional requirements such as more robust seals (Challenger) and insultating foam (Columbia) on the external tanks. Moreover, there is a huge logistics and support footprint for cryogenic fuels. They must be stored near the launch site and the spacecraft fueled immediately prior to launch and de-fueled if there is an abort. This further constrains flexibility of operations. In other words, while the Isp is much higher for cryos, there are other factors that in some cases trump the extra power per mass of propellant.
Oh! Oh! I know! I know!... because Spain and England aren't subject to US Legislation?!?!