But that mass is not as big a factor as recovering those engines. It's not just not having to build a new set of engines every launch, but also reliability. You have both tested engines in actual flight and some increased ability to recover failed rocket engines.
Just that "close" here is not "close" in terms of a workable solution as the summary had indicated they were close to having the problem solved. And in respect to the summary, I meant only that they are still a long ways off from having a reliable vehicle.
Actually, it is pretty close to solved. They probably just need to improve the control system a little bit.
Second, they have a reliable vehicle by the standards of current rocketry. They aren't competing head to head with a Boeing 747, but vehicles like the Atlas 5 or Soyuz. And a more reliable vehicle is a matter of using the current reliable vehicle a lot to develop the knowledge to build that vehicle more reliably.
Why do it the hardest and most fuel inefficient way imaginable.
There are two things to note here. First, it's not the most "fuel inefficient" way as your alternative demonstrates (all that crap has to go up as well as come down, that uses far more fuel than the current approach does). Second, fuel efficiency is not that important. The rocket engines that SpaceX is trying to recover are far more costly than the additional propellent required for the current scheme to recover them.
Drones could not be seen or detected, hence used as assassination devices. Iran is successfully killing drones, they are no longer immune to detection.
The US wasn't using drones to assassinate people in Iran. And so what if Iran can do it? It's not the same as someone elsewhere achieving the same feat, particularly without creating a military target in the process. Keep in mind that the US strategy is to always have drones in the air. So it's not that useful to be able to detect drones, because you will always be able to detect drones. Merely detecting drones tells you nothing about whether the controllers of those drones know enough to commit an effective assassination strike.
Study up on DOD and Military expenses, money has never been an object, ever in the history of the military.
The Second World War and the Cold War are obvious counterexamples. The US won both wars in large part because its opponents could not afford to match the US's industrial/economic strength. I don't see that working at all with China in the next few decades. And even ignoring the competition from that emerging superpower, we still have that the US military and its ongoing activities are a huge drain on the US.
To the last part, I think we are close to agreeing except for where you claim autonomous systems would still require humans.
I think a completely autonomous system will eventually be feasible. But then how would you know that it is working as intended? That implies the involvement of independent sensory systems, which would eventually have humans in the loop.
Further, it runs completely contrary to how modern military systems and strategies work. A key aspect of US military development is the combination of improved intelligence of the enemy with more accurate and precise delivery of military force. Manufactured ignorance which impairs decision makers' knowledge of ongoing military activities runs completely counter to that approach. I don't buy that anyone would allow the entire US military to run autonomously and unsupervised (especially given the many constraints that have been put on the US military over the centuries) just so they could have marginally better plausible deniability when it comes to killing innocents.
First part, drones were game changing when they were immune to detection and shutdown.
Drones were never immune to detection and shutdown. Nor is that their draw at present.
Drones are no different than aircraft currently.
Aircraft that are many times more expensive than drones and which contain a human pilot.
. They require a human to pilot and shoot, so morality still gets involved.
The same reasons that morality would get involved in a weapon system with a human pilot, would get involved with any other weapons system. We see it with landmines, for example. The cost/benefit of remote or autonomous systems is different, but your morality should apply equally.
And humans would still be involved. It's not like they'll throw away all information about the kills the autonomous robots are making. After all, they'll want those robots to be more effective, and you can't make anything more effective by ignoring it.
It can't end well, if the carve up continues apace.
Good thing the carve up isn't actually happening then. From 1988-2008, two thirds of humanity increased their income by at least 30%, adjusted for inflation.
but real research demonstrates basic environmental problems including a changing climate and resource depletion as the only contributing factors to every single decline
Except when that real research doesn't, of course.
whereas your postulation is unsupported by evidence
My "postulation" is often well documented in the literature of the time such as the documented behavior and infighting of the Roman elite during the centuries of the empires of Rome or similar activities of other large empires of China and Egypt. Famines, disease, etc are often also documented, which may partially support your claims of climate change.
Ataturk had nothing to do with the genocide and he condemned it.
While it is claimed that Ataturk was in a different part of the Ottoman empire at the time of the massacres, he had similar policies during a later war with Greece with several notable massacres happening under his watch, particularly, the so-called Great Fire of Smyrna.
It's not a stretch to wonder if Ataturk (or for that matter other powerful supporters) had a greater involvement in the genocides of 1915 than his official record suggests.
And there's some indication that reduced farm fertility may have helped destabilized the Roman empire as well as several Chinese empires. My point remains. Climate disruption is not an automatic death knell. But societal parasitism tends to undermine adaptability.
I think a big part of the reason it's so taboo is that the founders of modern Turkey were probably involved in the genocide, including Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the president of Turkey from 1923-1938. To admit that the leaders of Turkey of the past, were involved might call into question the legitimacy of Turkey today (particularly among minority groups like the Kurds and the hardcore religious) and undermine its secular myth building.
Solar thermal only provides you with raw energy, not the extremely fine tuned equipment to make pure silicon crystals. And every step of the way requires other specialized equipment of materials.
I thought we were speaking of the energy input. Of course, we can develop all that fine tuned equipment and that supply network too. After all, it's something that happened before. Food has been solved before as well.
Right now, a factory in Taiwan can simply order a $3 widget from a Swiss factory catalog that takes raw materials from Australia and Brazil.
And in the apocalyptic future, they'll order from the local landfill what raw materials they need. Down the road, when the global trade network gets reestablished, then that Taiwanese factory can once again order that $3 widget.
As long as there is plentiful solar power, we'll be able to reboot civilization over and over again. And it'll be easier than starting from scratch due to all the tech we'll have lying around.
In fact, most large civilizations have collapsed, and for very similar reasons: over consumption of resources.
Parasitism. There's a common thread in the end of most empires, large or small. The build up of incompetent bureaucracies and the elevation of power struggles and who gets what over survival of the empire.
What's the point of you responding to my post with this when my post had nothing to do with your argument or the complaint?
Uh, you do realize you replied to the "complaint" with why you modded me? That makes your post having everything to do with them and a reason for me to reply.
Well, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the other poster who questioned why the OP got modded insightful while yours didn't.
If you didn't want people replying to your posts, then don't post on Slashdot. It's quite simple how it works.
I don't mind negative mods. I do mind being anonymously insulted by people who don't think. There were two very obvious problems just with the little bit you wrote. And this isn't the first time someone has posted to me in the third person and then claimed they weren't.
But a member of the Mafia (or a company director) isn't just acting on their own behalf. Just because there is no physical person called Mr Mafia or Mr Corporation doesn't mean that the organisation doesn't exist.
The point here is that the member of the Mafia is acting not the Mafia.
Institutions like the Army or Catholic Church most certainly have an existence beyond their constituent human members.
Sure, in that there's knowledge/tradition peculiar to the institution, property owned by the institution, recognition of the institution by outsiders, etc. None of this allows the institutions to act independently of their members and commit crimes independent of their members.
But, you are implying that the corporation can't commit a crime. Then, you insist that this make-believe entity, the corporation, is exempt from prosecution.
No, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to prosecute a non-sentient thing for a crime that it can't commit. Fantasy crime is just the tip of the iceberg with the problems this approach brings. For example, the idea that property can commit crimes is the basis of the reprehensible civil asset seizure laws that the US has.
I personally don't see it as a game changer. Radars are detecting them easier, and jammers are bringing them down easier. Iran has dropped quite a few from the US and Israel.
Easier than what? There is nothing else in the role these current drones are being used for.
It is a real moral dilemma having to kill someone, and especially if your life is not in danger. It is that dilemma which is leading to the desire for autonomous systems by people in power. No risk of guys like Manning or Snowden being disgusted with the morality of the situation and dumping information to the public. Immoral politicians will push the button themselves, or tell the immoral military guys they allow to stay on staff to do the work.
And you're telling me that's not a game changer either?
Police officers arrested Mr Weston, mid-speech, for failing to comply with their request to move on under the powers of a dispersal order made against him.
He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harrassment.
So yes, he was arrested for failing to comply with a police order and yes, he was arrested for his speech as well.
Most civilized countries are realizing that landmines are rather deplorable weapons, it seems interesting that they would be ok with robotic weaponry...
It's because landmines have limited value, but robotic weaponry is a game changer. For example, we may be a few decades away from obsolescence of traditional human piloted fighter aircraft due to higher cost per seat, lower acceleration tolerance, and possibly slower reaction speeds.
Sure, you can ban the weapons, but then the initiative for their development and use will just go to those who break the rules.
Slashdot Mirror
But that mass is not as big a factor as recovering those engines. It's not just not having to build a new set of engines every launch, but also reliability. You have both tested engines in actual flight and some increased ability to recover failed rocket engines.
Just that "close" here is not "close" in terms of a workable solution as the summary had indicated they were close to having the problem solved. And in respect to the summary, I meant only that they are still a long ways off from having a reliable vehicle.
Actually, it is pretty close to solved. They probably just need to improve the control system a little bit.
Second, they have a reliable vehicle by the standards of current rocketry. They aren't competing head to head with a Boeing 747, but vehicles like the Atlas 5 or Soyuz. And a more reliable vehicle is a matter of using the current reliable vehicle a lot to develop the knowledge to build that vehicle more reliably.
Why do it the hardest and most fuel inefficient way imaginable.
There are two things to note here. First, it's not the most "fuel inefficient" way as your alternative demonstrates (all that crap has to go up as well as come down, that uses far more fuel than the current approach does). Second, fuel efficiency is not that important. The rocket engines that SpaceX is trying to recover are far more costly than the additional propellent required for the current scheme to recover them.
Because salt water is bad for rocket engines.
Drones could not be seen or detected, hence used as assassination devices. Iran is successfully killing drones, they are no longer immune to detection.
The US wasn't using drones to assassinate people in Iran. And so what if Iran can do it? It's not the same as someone elsewhere achieving the same feat, particularly without creating a military target in the process. Keep in mind that the US strategy is to always have drones in the air. So it's not that useful to be able to detect drones, because you will always be able to detect drones. Merely detecting drones tells you nothing about whether the controllers of those drones know enough to commit an effective assassination strike.
Study up on DOD and Military expenses, money has never been an object, ever in the history of the military.
The Second World War and the Cold War are obvious counterexamples. The US won both wars in large part because its opponents could not afford to match the US's industrial/economic strength. I don't see that working at all with China in the next few decades. And even ignoring the competition from that emerging superpower, we still have that the US military and its ongoing activities are a huge drain on the US.
To the last part, I think we are close to agreeing except for where you claim autonomous systems would still require humans.
I think a completely autonomous system will eventually be feasible. But then how would you know that it is working as intended? That implies the involvement of independent sensory systems, which would eventually have humans in the loop.
Further, it runs completely contrary to how modern military systems and strategies work. A key aspect of US military development is the combination of improved intelligence of the enemy with more accurate and precise delivery of military force. Manufactured ignorance which impairs decision makers' knowledge of ongoing military activities runs completely counter to that approach. I don't buy that anyone would allow the entire US military to run autonomously and unsupervised (especially given the many constraints that have been put on the US military over the centuries) just so they could have marginally better plausible deniability when it comes to killing innocents.
First part, drones were game changing when they were immune to detection and shutdown.
Drones were never immune to detection and shutdown. Nor is that their draw at present.
Drones are no different than aircraft currently.
Aircraft that are many times more expensive than drones and which contain a human pilot.
. They require a human to pilot and shoot, so morality still gets involved.
The same reasons that morality would get involved in a weapon system with a human pilot, would get involved with any other weapons system. We see it with landmines, for example. The cost/benefit of remote or autonomous systems is different, but your morality should apply equally.
And humans would still be involved. It's not like they'll throw away all information about the kills the autonomous robots are making. After all, they'll want those robots to be more effective, and you can't make anything more effective by ignoring it.
Just feel good that you'll never be as bad as your children.
It can't end well, if the carve up continues apace.
Good thing the carve up isn't actually happening then. From 1988-2008, two thirds of humanity increased their income by at least 30%, adjusted for inflation.
but real research demonstrates basic environmental problems including a changing climate and resource depletion as the only contributing factors to every single decline
Except when that real research doesn't, of course.
whereas your postulation is unsupported by evidence
My "postulation" is often well documented in the literature of the time such as the documented behavior and infighting of the Roman elite during the centuries of the empires of Rome or similar activities of other large empires of China and Egypt. Famines, disease, etc are often also documented, which may partially support your claims of climate change.
Ataturk had nothing to do with the genocide and he condemned it.
While it is claimed that Ataturk was in a different part of the Ottoman empire at the time of the massacres, he had similar policies during a later war with Greece with several notable massacres happening under his watch, particularly, the so-called Great Fire of Smyrna.
It's not a stretch to wonder if Ataturk (or for that matter other powerful supporters) had a greater involvement in the genocides of 1915 than his official record suggests.
And there's some indication that reduced farm fertility may have helped destabilized the Roman empire as well as several Chinese empires. My point remains. Climate disruption is not an automatic death knell. But societal parasitism tends to undermine adaptability.
I think a big part of the reason it's so taboo is that the founders of modern Turkey were probably involved in the genocide, including Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the president of Turkey from 1923-1938. To admit that the leaders of Turkey of the past, were involved might call into question the legitimacy of Turkey today (particularly among minority groups like the Kurds and the hardcore religious) and undermine its secular myth building.
Yes.
Mechanizing farming is the top priority, it is the prerequisite for industrialization. It cannot be done with solar thermal.
But solar thermal can be used as the primary energy input to produce fuel.
Solar thermal only provides you with raw energy, not the extremely fine tuned equipment to make pure silicon crystals. And every step of the way requires other specialized equipment of materials.
I thought we were speaking of the energy input. Of course, we can develop all that fine tuned equipment and that supply network too. After all, it's something that happened before. Food has been solved before as well.
Right now, a factory in Taiwan can simply order a $3 widget from a Swiss factory catalog that takes raw materials from Australia and Brazil. And in the apocalyptic future, they'll order from the local landfill what raw materials they need. Down the road, when the global trade network gets reestablished, then that Taiwanese factory can once again order that $3 widget.
If you assume that all our high tech factories will still be operational, that's hardly a reboot.
Read my post. I don't say that.
And without that tech, how are you going make new photovoltaic cells ?
Solar thermal.
As long as there is plentiful solar power, we'll be able to reboot civilization over and over again. And it'll be easier than starting from scratch due to all the tech we'll have lying around.
Without that much free energy
Fossil fuels are far from free. And we have solar power which is vastly more plentiful than fossil fuels.
In fact, most large civilizations have collapsed, and for very similar reasons: over consumption of resources.
Parasitism. There's a common thread in the end of most empires, large or small. The build up of incompetent bureaucracies and the elevation of power struggles and who gets what over survival of the empire.
What's the point of you responding to my post with this when my post had nothing to do with your argument or the complaint?
Uh, you do realize you replied to the "complaint" with why you modded me? That makes your post having everything to do with them and a reason for me to reply.
Well, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the other poster who questioned why the OP got modded insightful while yours didn't.
If you didn't want people replying to your posts, then don't post on Slashdot. It's quite simple how it works.
I don't mind negative mods. I do mind being anonymously insulted by people who don't think. There were two very obvious problems just with the little bit you wrote. And this isn't the first time someone has posted to me in the third person and then claimed they weren't.
But a member of the Mafia (or a company director) isn't just acting on their own behalf. Just because there is no physical person called Mr Mafia or Mr Corporation doesn't mean that the organisation doesn't exist.
The point here is that the member of the Mafia is acting not the Mafia.
Institutions like the Army or Catholic Church most certainly have an existence beyond their constituent human members.
Sure, in that there's knowledge/tradition peculiar to the institution, property owned by the institution, recognition of the institution by outsiders, etc. None of this allows the institutions to act independently of their members and commit crimes independent of their members.
But, you are implying that the corporation can't commit a crime. Then, you insist that this make-believe entity, the corporation, is exempt from prosecution.
No, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to prosecute a non-sentient thing for a crime that it can't commit. Fantasy crime is just the tip of the iceberg with the problems this approach brings. For example, the idea that property can commit crimes is the basis of the reprehensible civil asset seizure laws that the US has.
I personally don't see it as a game changer. Radars are detecting them easier, and jammers are bringing them down easier. Iran has dropped quite a few from the US and Israel.
Easier than what? There is nothing else in the role these current drones are being used for.
It is a real moral dilemma having to kill someone, and especially if your life is not in danger. It is that dilemma which is leading to the desire for autonomous systems by people in power. No risk of guys like Manning or Snowden being disgusted with the morality of the situation and dumping information to the public. Immoral politicians will push the button themselves, or tell the immoral military guys they allow to stay on staff to do the work.
And you're telling me that's not a game changer either?
Police officers arrested Mr Weston, mid-speech, for failing to comply with their request to move on under the powers of a dispersal order made against him.
He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harrassment.
So yes, he was arrested for failing to comply with a police order and yes, he was arrested for his speech as well.
Most civilized countries are realizing that landmines are rather deplorable weapons, it seems interesting that they would be ok with robotic weaponry...
It's because landmines have limited value, but robotic weaponry is a game changer. For example, we may be a few decades away from obsolescence of traditional human piloted fighter aircraft due to higher cost per seat, lower acceleration tolerance, and possibly slower reaction speeds.
Sure, you can ban the weapons, but then the initiative for their development and use will just go to those who break the rules.