One of the (many) unknown "truths" about space is that zero-g really sucks! It makes even the hardiest astronaut feel like they have a low-grade flu constantly, and worse. Your bowels clag up, your eyes feel awful, your joints are sore, the works.
Of course, the view is great!
Carbon Unit wrote: "I guess your the only one in an industry of hundreds of thousands of the brightest engineers, scientist and very shrewd businessmen that has thought there could be a better way? Put the pipe down please."
To which I would add - and they are all working at cost plus. Which means zero incentive for reducing launch costs. Add the Shuttle to that mix, and NASA has been discouraging work on "big boosters" for 30 years, because they would compete. I mean, come on Carbon Unit! Do some reading on launch hardware and aerospace politics before you call Carmack a crack head! He's actually exactly correct. And I can't see anywhere in his comments where he thinks he's the only one seeing this; he isn't. People from Robert Zubrin to ex-NASA administrators are saying the same thing?
Or was that your point? Still, why the abuse? (Shrug)
Senator, since the main effect of lengthening the period of copyright and patent protection seems to be to stifle competition, when do you think we will see a move back to the principles established by the framers of the constitution and a _shortening_ of the protection period?
Someone can write this question better and more accurately than me I am sure, but a question to that effect might be interesting to hear answered.
Excellent - well that puts my half-memory to rest!
Thanks for your conclusive response! It's nice to be able to admit ignorance (as I did) and not have 23 responses saying "You didn't know that you idiot?!"
With the position seeming absolutely certain in your response, was it just habit that you tacked the "not my client, isn't legal advice" thing on?! *grin*
I can just see the 'curtained off' section of the greenhouse now; NASA buggin the astronauts to let them see what's in there; astronauts ignoring the requests. Spending a lot of time in the john.... making the crew wardroom into a big dutch oven.... Heheh!
Did you bother checking what is now the NASA reference mission? I am quoting it. I presume the (kind) folk who modded my little post did. They would have seen that this is EXACTLY the configuration recommended by the experts.
Here it is for you: Mars Direct. For information directly relating to cosmic radiation go to this pdf
Question: is it just wit to say "The greater the truth, the greater the libel!"?
Publishing "the truth" about someone has not usually been enough of a defense. I think (but IsureANAL) that you also have to establish that it's "in the public interest". But again, my high school social studies class is a long time in the past...
Sigh. Trivial compared to, say, designing the engines. Trivial compared to, say, the wiring. Trivial compared to, say, other ergonomic concerns far more complex than designating a small cylinder inside a bigger cylinder as "the solar storm shelter" and calling the walls bulkhead 1. If it's the first decision you make then everything else flows on, no? Double sigh. I think you knew what I meant. I think that you were just being a bit of a nark about the whole thing, no?
There are several designs out there already, in fact one is being tested right now in the desert. Go check it out.
Remember that Mars has 1/3 the gravity of Earth, so this "problem" is much smaller there.
And the Shuttle is 70s technology and was deliberately designed to require the use of a large ground crew.
You are talking apples and oranges.
But, if you don't want to just take my word that the problems you mention have been solved simply check out NASA's reference mission and Mars Direct here at:
http://www.nw.net/mars/
We are better prepared now to go to Mars than we were to go to the Moon in 1960 when Kennedy made his famous speech. We could have humans on Mars by 2010 if we wanted to. Why do we want to? Go here:
Although it does pose a problem, radiation on a Mars Mission is not a mission stopper or even a mission slower. Any potential mission would be taking along a large quantity of water, food, and along the way building up stocks of the stuff that water and food becomes.....
Arranging the tanks and compartments that carry such stuff to provide a solar storm safety shelter in the center of your "tin can" is a trivial design exercise. A meter or two of water between you and the radiation is pretty much all you need. The ambient radiation is a problem, although only in percentage terms (it slightly increases your chance of getting cancer sometime later in your life). The point has been made that you could recruit the crew from smokers; they couldn't smoke on the mission; and you would actually decrease their chance of getting cancer during their lives by sending them to Mars!
Many, many design studies have been done utilising exactly the design I mentioned above, and it works. Read about it in this book or at this website.
I wasn't saying any of the things you attribute to me. I am well aware of the costs associated with producing content, distributing it, etc. etc.
Production costs, by the way, amortize out over the number of units you sell, just to respond breifly to your straw man arguments.
But you weren't attacking my point, or the point of the original article. Perhaps my point wasn't clear. I'll put it another way:
The thing that I came to understand, that I didn't before reading the article, was the connection between copyright and monopoly. That's all I was really saying, and I was using games and books to emotively illustrate that point. Other respondants to my post have spoken to this.
Now I also know that admitting you didn't know something or figure something out years before is tantamount to flame-induced suicide on/.! And as I said in my original post, perhaps I am just getting old, or, as you so kindly put it, perhaps I am just extremely stupid. But there it is.
Heh! Perhaps I am just getting too old. Because the point in the LawMeme article about the ability to sell above marginal cost being a leading indicator of monopoly just hit me right between the eyes!
That is SO right, and so how come I don't remember hearing that point before (or how come I didn't think it up myself!)
I immediately thought of games (who didn't!?) retailing at hugely above their production cost, and books the same. Why do we accept these things? I for one would buy far more books and far more games if publishers set prices at simply a "fair margin". Who would rip games onto CDs for their friends if you could get them in the store (with a free CD case and handy booklet) for $5? Who of us wouldn't have libraries twice, thrice as big if books were similarly priced?
And if these new pricing schemes were in existance, wouldn't they force publishers to try and innovate in the way their "content" was delivered? There is no pressure to build a useable "e-book" while "paper-books" have such huge profits built into the system. There is no pressure to take the (in some cases) 3 boxes out of the packaging of computer games (3 boxes that mostly just get torn off and thrown away like christmas paper).
Ya gotta love a good lawyer or law writer, they always make arguments that set your mind to work!
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.
Now it doesn't take a genius to conclude from this that embryos fail this "test". And you certainly worded your version to help your argument, and why not of course!
Want more? This simple google search will help those who want to settle this in their own minds.
Robots will NEVER be rockhounds, and that's who we need in space at this point.
Robots (hey this is just like on earth!) are great at helping humans, but they are lousy at figuring things out.
Wouldn't it have been great to just get up and WALK to that ridge beckoning in the background of the Pathfinder photographs? I bet the view was pretty amazing from there. I bet you could have seen some features that would (yet again) totally change our models of what happened on Mars, and in the process take another great leap forward in our understanding of planetary science.
Ask a robot to do that? Fugeddaboutit. If its batteries don't run out or it doesn't turn itself upside down trying to cross a boulder or its engineers didn't forget to convert inches to centimeters, then maybe in a week or two it will get to the top of the ridge and "image" the view. Want to look closer at that big boulder on the next ridge? The one with the line of lighter coloured material on it that looks like it was shaped by liquid flow? Wait for the next mission, sorry. The rover can't go out of LOS to the lander. Bah.
There are at least three great alternatives from a variety of vendors:
1) Dumb Cards Key +ve: Really Cheap, both cards and readers. Key -ve: Doesn't know you are really you.
2) Smart Cards Key +ve: Can be made nigh-on-impossible to crack depending on your needs. Key -ve: A tad on the pricey side; integration harder.
3) "Alternative Ident" (like eye recognition, voice print, assorted sci-fi stuff) Key +ve: People who come to your office think that you're cooler than James Bond! Key -ve: Super expensive as of press date.
I've installed dumb cards at a couple of sites (I don't work for a dumb card manufacturer and will not give free advertising, contact me personally if you want more) with high user satisfaction resulting. People walk past a guard to get into the building (who verifies their ident from a screen if s/he doesn't know them personally) and then the card "unlocks" their PC with a reader that costs about $15 per station to install. To "lock" their PC for a toilet stop (for example) they simply re-swipe. Secondary benefit (on one site that could get away with it (read no unions!)) they collected productivity data from the computer unlock time, which of course meant people immediately compromised security and left their machines "unlocked" when they went to the can, to lunch, etc.!
Passwords are so 1992 - and you can save a nice wad of cash in medium to large corps by not having to employ those couple extra help desk employees simply to change people's passwords when they (always) forget them.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the (many) unknown "truths" about space is that zero-g really sucks! It makes even the hardiest astronaut feel like they have a low-grade flu constantly, and worse. Your bowels clag up, your eyes feel awful, your joints are sore, the works. Of course, the view is great!
To which I would add - and they are all working at cost plus. Which means zero incentive for reducing launch costs. Add the Shuttle to that mix, and NASA has been discouraging work on "big boosters" for 30 years, because they would compete. I mean, come on Carbon Unit! Do some reading on launch hardware and aerospace politics before you call Carmack a crack head! He's actually exactly correct. And I can't see anywhere in his comments where he thinks he's the only one seeing this; he isn't. People from Robert Zubrin to ex-NASA administrators are saying the same thing?
Or was that your point? Still, why the abuse? (Shrug)
Senator, since the main effect of lengthening the period of copyright and patent protection seems to be to stifle competition, when do you think we will see a move back to the principles established by the framers of the constitution and a _shortening_ of the protection period?
Someone can write this question better and more accurately than me I am sure, but a question to that effect might be interesting to hear answered.
Excellent - well that puts my half-memory to rest! Thanks for your conclusive response! It's nice to be able to admit ignorance (as I did) and not have 23 responses saying "You didn't know that you idiot?!" With the position seeming absolutely certain in your response, was it just habit that you tacked the "not my client, isn't legal advice" thing on?! *grin*
LOL!
I can just see the 'curtained off' section of the greenhouse now; NASA buggin the astronauts to let them see what's in there; astronauts ignoring the requests. Spending a lot of time in the john.... making the crew wardroom into a big dutch oven.... Heheh!
LOL! You mustn't get out much... :)
Did you bother checking what is now the NASA reference mission? I am quoting it. I presume the (kind) folk who modded my little post did. They would have seen that this is EXACTLY the configuration recommended by the experts.
Here it is for you: Mars Direct. For information directly relating to cosmic radiation go to this pdf
Question: is it just wit to say "The greater the truth, the greater the libel!"?
Publishing "the truth" about someone has not usually been enough of a defense. I think (but IsureANAL) that you also have to establish that it's "in the public interest". But again, my high school social studies class is a long time in the past...
Be good if some lawyers could post on this....
There are several designs out there already, in fact one is being tested right now in the desert. Go check it out.
Remember that Mars has 1/3 the gravity of Earth, so this "problem" is much smaller there.
And the Shuttle is 70s technology and was deliberately designed to require the use of a large ground crew.
You are talking apples and oranges.
But, if you don't want to just take my word that the problems you mention have been solved simply check out NASA's reference mission and Mars Direct here at:
http://www.nw.net/mars/
We are better prepared now to go to Mars than we were to go to the Moon in 1960 when Kennedy made his famous speech. We could have humans on Mars by 2010 if we wanted to. Why do we want to? Go here:
http://www.marssociety.org
Arranging the tanks and compartments that carry such stuff to provide a solar storm safety shelter in the center of your "tin can" is a trivial design exercise. A meter or two of water between you and the radiation is pretty much all you need. The ambient radiation is a problem, although only in percentage terms (it slightly increases your chance of getting cancer sometime later in your life). The point has been made that you could recruit the crew from smokers; they couldn't smoke on the mission; and you would actually decrease their chance of getting cancer during their lives by sending them to Mars!
Many, many design studies have been done utilising exactly the design I mentioned above, and it works. Read about it in this book or at this website.
I wasn't saying any of the things you attribute to me. I am well aware of the costs associated with producing content, distributing it, etc. etc.
/.! And as I said in my original post, perhaps I am just getting old, or, as you so kindly put it, perhaps I am just extremely stupid. But there it is.
Production costs, by the way, amortize out over the number of units you sell, just to respond breifly to your straw man arguments.
But you weren't attacking my point, or the point of the original article. Perhaps my point wasn't clear. I'll put it another way:
The thing that I came to understand, that I didn't before reading the article, was the connection between copyright and monopoly. That's all I was really saying, and I was using games and books to emotively illustrate that point. Other respondants to my post have spoken to this.
Now I also know that admitting you didn't know something or figure something out years before is tantamount to flame-induced suicide on
Heh! Perhaps I am just getting too old. Because the point in the LawMeme article about the ability to sell above marginal cost being a leading indicator of monopoly just hit me right between the eyes!
That is SO right, and so how come I don't remember hearing that point before (or how come I didn't think it up myself!)
I immediately thought of games (who didn't!?) retailing at hugely above their production cost, and books the same. Why do we accept these things? I for one would buy far more books and far more games if publishers set prices at simply a "fair margin". Who would rip games onto CDs for their friends if you could get them in the store (with a free CD case and handy booklet) for $5? Who of us wouldn't have libraries twice, thrice as big if books were similarly priced?
And if these new pricing schemes were in existance, wouldn't they force publishers to try and innovate in the way their "content" was delivered? There is no pressure to build a useable "e-book" while "paper-books" have such huge profits built into the system. There is no pressure to take the (in some cases) 3 boxes out of the packaging of computer games (3 boxes that mostly just get torn off and thrown away like christmas paper).
Ya gotta love a good lawyer or law writer, they always make arguments that set your mind to work!
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.
Now it doesn't take a genius to conclude from this that embryos fail this "test". And you certainly worded your version to help your argument, and why not of course!
Want more? This simple google search will help those who want to settle this in their own minds.
Hmmm. Let me think.... two things spring to mind.
1. What ancient culture reveres the dragon?
2. What's the name of the only other country to still harbour superpower dreams?
Coincidence? Don't think so. And I don't think the military of the (very large) country I am avoiding naming will think so either.
Foolish naming. Provokes for no possible benefit.
Robots will NEVER be rockhounds, and that's who we need in space at this point.
Robots (hey this is just like on earth!) are great at helping humans, but they are lousy at figuring things out.
Wouldn't it have been great to just get up and WALK to that ridge beckoning in the background of the Pathfinder photographs? I bet the view was pretty amazing from there. I bet you could have seen some features that would (yet again) totally change our models of what happened on Mars, and in the process take another great leap forward in our understanding of planetary science.
Ask a robot to do that? Fugeddaboutit. If its batteries don't run out or it doesn't turn itself upside down trying to cross a boulder or its engineers didn't forget to convert inches to centimeters, then maybe in a week or two it will get to the top of the ridge and "image" the view. Want to look closer at that big boulder on the next ridge? The one with the line of lighter coloured material on it that looks like it was shaped by liquid flow? Wait for the next mission, sorry. The rover can't go out of LOS to the lander. Bah.
There are at least three great alternatives from a variety of vendors:
1) Dumb Cards
Key +ve: Really Cheap, both cards and readers.
Key -ve: Doesn't know you are really you.
2) Smart Cards
Key +ve: Can be made nigh-on-impossible to crack depending on your needs.
Key -ve: A tad on the pricey side; integration harder.
3) "Alternative Ident" (like eye recognition, voice print, assorted sci-fi stuff)
Key +ve: People who come to your office think that you're cooler than James Bond!
Key -ve: Super expensive as of press date.
I've installed dumb cards at a couple of sites (I don't work for a dumb card manufacturer and will not give free advertising, contact me personally if you want more) with high user satisfaction resulting. People walk past a guard to get into the building (who verifies their ident from a screen if s/he doesn't know them personally) and then the card "unlocks" their PC with a reader that costs about $15 per station to install. To "lock" their PC for a toilet stop (for example) they simply re-swipe. Secondary benefit (on one site that could get away with it (read no unions!)) they collected productivity data from the computer unlock time, which of course meant people immediately compromised security and left their machines "unlocked" when they went to the can, to lunch, etc.!
Passwords are so 1992 - and you can save a nice wad of cash in medium to large corps by not having to employ those couple extra help desk employees simply to change people's passwords when they (always) forget them.