Just send return ships/fuel/supplies ahead, maybe even place a few at way points. This way resupply is available and help insure safety.
Say two ships taking people there. Each can hold the all crew, but only 1/2 in each. Meet a way point and refuel, top off O2 tanks,... Maybe even an extra booster or two. Reach Mars,
Generally, when we send things out into space, they move in ballistic trajectories that we like to call "orbits".
One of the odd characteristics of an "orbit" is that you don't stop moving while "orbiting". Which means that anything put at an intermediate waypoint would, well, move away from that point.
Even worse, when your spacecraft reached the waypoint, if by some chance your resupply cache were there, it would be moving relative to you. Very quickly, in fact. Which means you'd either just smash into it, destroying both your spacecraft and your resupply cache, or you'd have to burn a buttload of fuel to match orbits, refuel, then burn another buttload of fuel to put yourself back in an orbit to reach Mars (or wherever you're headed).
In other words, it's not practical to do that sort of thing.
Look what happened to Motorola in its Iridium project - $50 billion loss.
Of course, Iridium involved spending $50 billion to build a system that sold something that not many people had a use for, at a really high price.
What this project sells may very well be at a very high price, but it certainly won't be something that not many people have a use for - pretty much all of us need electricity.
and I could be mistaken, but back then the word "state" really meant nation, and thus WV formed its own nation and remained a part of the United States (nations) of America. The word 'state' has changed greatly in the last 200 years.
So has "United States". In 1860, it was plural. After the Civil War, it was singular.
I guess boxing gloves cause brain damage, too? Or maybe it's boxing that causes brain damage, and the gloves reduce the risk...
Boxing gloves cause more damage than they prevent.
Boxing gloves are meant to protect a boxer's hands, not his opponent's head. They do that so well that a modern boxer can keep dishing out hurt long after an early 19th century bare-knuckles boxer would have had both hands incapacitated by his own blows.
Which allows the boxer to do more damage to his opponent, thus increasing the risk of severe damage to both parties in a fight.
On the use of military power to protect access to energy, again there are lots and lots of real asshole leaders in the world, constantly threatening their neighbors. But the only one the U.S. got all military with, was Iraq. Twice.
And, oddly enough, we don't buy oil from Iraq, and never have, really.
Note also that while "there are lots and lots of real asshole leaders in the world, constantly threatening their neighbors", Iraq went past threats to invasions twice in ten years.
When was the last time you saw a major naval battle between surface ships, particularly battleships? It doesn't happen anymore because submarines and aircraft carriers made it obsolete.
No, it doesn't happen anymore because only one Navy has any battleships left (and our battleships are mothballed till the next time we decide we really need them). Or any other surface ships larger than destroyers (excluding CV's, of course), for that matter.
And that's more a matter of battleships being expensive than being especially vulnerable. It's not like you can't put missiles on a battleship, after all, or any other thing that helps to make it harder to sink than, say, a destroyer.
Bush also torpedoed NASA by giving them the directive of going to the Moon and Mars without funding the directives.
While Bush-bashing is always fun, it should be pointed out that only Congress can fund things in the US Government.
Specifically, all spending has to originate with the House of Representatives, though actual practice frequently has both Houses creating spending bills in parallel, then working out disagreements later.
Also, don't forget this tidbit: "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Searching the hard drive is one thing. Imaging the entire hard drive, and keeping that image on file for an undetermined period of time, is another thing entirely.
Quite so. If it qualifies as an unreasonable search. Otherwise, it doesn't necessarily require a warrant.
Not, mind you, that I think the Supremes will think it's a reasonable search. But I didn't think that Drunk Driving checkpoints were going to be approved either.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There is one phrase there that might of interest - "unreasonable searches and seizures". And there hangs the ACLU's case. Are these searches "unreasonable"?
In my opinion, they probably are.
But a good lawyer can make a lot of mileage out of one key word, and "unreasonable" will probably be the word more argued over in this lawsuit.
While this is certainly true, I should point out that more guns in the USA are used for target shooting than for killing.
Yeah, I didn't really want to go there.
Understand completely. I was just pointing out that there exist a large group of people who believe that tools can be evil. And those people would be delighted by the chance to name yet another tool to be evil incarnate.
IMO, men can be evil, and can use tools to commit evil acts. But the tools, in and of themselves, are never more than tools, and no more evil than a rock is evil.
Yes, a gun is a tool. So is a rock, for that matter....
2)Would anyone in their right mind say that, because someone somewhere has used a car to commit a crime (drunk driving? getaway car in a robbery? ran over someone who pissed them off?) that therefore all cars are inherently evil? Of course not, so why would you say that about software?
Of course, people say that about guns all the time. So I'm assuming that the same sort of people would say the same sort of thing about a Trojan...
Unfortunately, the economic culture in the United States has shifted significantly away from next decade's profit and towards this quarter's profit.
By "economic culture", you clearly mean "corporate culture". Privately owned businesses, even large ones, are not necessarily affected by this particular myopia.
And yet, I don't see a lot of private investors/businesses leaping in to this new "opportunity". And the ones who do leap in seem more interested in the potential tax breaks and free government money than in actually making something. I notice, for instance, in the news this AM, that a couple of renewable energy companies are considering picking up an old Ford plant to make into a factory complex. IF they can get some of that stimulus money, and IF they get about $125 million in tax credits/breaks. Please note that they're talking about spending about $100 million of their own money in exchange for considerably more than $100 million government money tossed into the pot.
It's an awful big world out there, and I don't see why an intelligent person should cram their head full of geographical location data unless it's relevant to them personally.
There speaks the "voice of reason" in opposition to the notion that people should be well-educated, as opposed to highly trained....
Considering the technology to really "go green" does not yet exist, its not surprising that China is not using it. Someone needs to man up and start working on it.
This kind of innovation will not occur without legislation that is going to hurt. Tough. Once the technology is actually mature and AVAILABLE I would expect the rest of the world to jump on it.
So, you agree that this is going to hurt the American economy? Good, since most pro-Kyoto types have been insisting for years that it would help the economy rather than hurting it. At least you're rational enough to accept that. Which makes the real question one of "will the benefits (economic and otherwise, though ultimately everything is economics, even human rights) outweigh the costs?" And of course, the corollary, "When will we reach the point that the benefits exceed the cost?"
I'm curious as to why you think that the technology doesn't exist, by the way.
Certainly the industry doesn't exist, but solar cells are no big deal to make. Nor are windmills. Electric cars are only marginally useful outside major urban areas, but that's mostly an infrastructure problem.
However, what I'm really curious about is your conclusion that after we've spent a great deal of money developing this technology, the rest of the world will "jump on it". I take it you are expecting that in 20 years or so, windmills and solar power will be cheaper than coal power? If so, why?
Also, are you heavily invested in "green" power? If not, why not? It would be an incredibly good investment if, as you believe, everyone in the world will be buying into it in a short time.
Given that most of the goods produced by those coal-powered factories in China are for export to the USA, slapping an environmental tax proportional to the pollution generated in manufacture on all goods sold in the USA irrespective of where they were manufactured would do the trick.
No, that'll just send the Chinese economy into the crapper. And the American one as well. And the European one...
Note that there is NO solution to the Chinese problem right now. In fifty years, maybe we can start talking to them seriously about the issue. But they're ramping up to join the First World nations in terms of standard of living. They're not going to stop unless you force them to, and if you do, you'll be the root cause of a great deal of human misery.
Which just might make the Chinese think about distracting their people from their problems by a "short, victorious war".
Or, even worse from the US perspective, dump all those T-Bills they hold. They've still got us by the short hairs because they own such a large chunk of our national debt. Luckily, we've got them by the short hairs because their economy will tank if they stop exporting to us. Alas, passing tariffs such as you propose would remove all the reasons they might want to hang onto that share of our national debt in their own interest.
Net result of your proposal - a new worldwide recession much worse than the current one, and not one bit of reduction in CO2 output. Though, admittedly it would not increase so quickly, since no-one would be able to afford to build new power plants.
Or to replace old power plants with new, environmentally friendly ones....
I suspect that one of the best things that could happen for US politics would be to reform political fund raising laws slightly:
0) Make companies non-human entities
1) Make it illegal for companies to donate money to political parties and candidates
2) Make an upper limit of donations of $100 per year.
That way you'd end up with a system, where a political campaign doesn't end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars (since no political party could afford it). This would make the playing field a lot more even for outsider parties. It'd minimize the influence of huge conglomerates of companies, and improve the influence of individual citizens instead.
Your second paragraph does not follow from your first.
While Obama got a lot of money from corporations, he also got a lot from individuals in small amounts (at least, he so advertised - not sure how true that really is). Enough so he could dispense with Federal Matching funds and still spend more money than any candidate in the history of the world.
Main thing I see coming out of your proposal is that corporations donate to campaigns more subtly, so you won't notice as much.
And that most candidates for office will be independently wealthy. You really want a Congress composed entirely of multimillionaires? And yes, I know that it's largely composed of multimillionaires now.
But if you want to make the price for sitting down at the table in a Presidential race that you have $100 million of your own money to spend on it, then pass the rules you've described. And be prepared for a lot of races with only one candidate....
If a big country like the US can make the shift to renewable, green power and simultaneously cut unnecessary wasteful power usage it will have a competitive advantage in the world.
I'll bite. What competitive advantage will we have, exactly?
And if using renewable power is so advantageous, why do we require legislation to make it happen? If it were profitable, wouldn't those people who are concerned solely with money be leaping in to reap the economic benefits?
Note, by the way, that I'm not arguing that fossil fuels are Good, and renewable power is Evil. But I am curious about how you solve a problem requiring that everyone be on board NOW without, well, everyone being on board now....
China has already said that it's not going to accept any binding limits on its pollution this next round of CO2 limiting. So has India. Which means that, whatever we do, CO2 levels are going to increase. Dramatically, since there are a lot of Chinese and Indians who are going to want a standard of living in the same timezone as our standard of living.
So, we set an example that China and India have already said they won't follow. Yah, it makes us less dependent on foreign oil, which is a good thing. But, no, it doesn't really do anything about Climate Change. Nor does it cause all those nations that aren't required to limit their CO2 emissions to suddenly say "Oh, noes! We must get with the program since the USA has joined in!!!".
Racism is when you hate those who are different for no logical reason,
No, bigotry is when you hate those who are different for no reason other than that they're different.
Racism is the belief that different races are, well, different - blacks are lazy, asians are smart, jews are money-grubbing, etc.
And it is quite possible to be racist without being bigoted. Or it was at one time, when it wasn't so clear that the racial stereotypes are just stereotypes.
H.P. Lovecraft was quite the racist. But his wife was Jewish (I'd really give a lot to know what those two talked about over dinner - "Honey, that Hebe Shylock over on 12th robbed me blind on that loan yesterday", "Dearest, that's Daddy you're talking about"). Far as I can tell, while he believed pretty much all the raciat stereotypes common to his period, he didn't actually let them color his relations with the people he knew, no matter their race....
I'm confused. I thought a summary judgement was when a judge decides that the evidence didn't support the claims and judged without a trial. Wouldn't a new/appealed trial have a new discovery?
No, the case will be handed back to Judge Kimball, and it'll be the same old case, with just his Summary Judgements (except the one about the money) reversed. So he'll have to preside over a trial, but Discovery is still over.
As for the judge, which judge is the same one for both? As I understood it, the old judge was gone and this guy is new to the field.
The Appeals judge retired right after he made this ruling. The trial judge is the same as it's always been - Kimball.
the average distance from earth to mars is around 78 million km,
Umm, no. The average distance from Earth to Mars is somewhere around 239 million km.
You can't determine average Earth-to-Mars distance by subtracting the average distance Earth is from the Sun from the average distance Mars is from the Sun.
You were inattentive. The "aerobraking" comment was for going places FROM the moon, not TO the moon.
If we were talking about going TO the moon, then 5 km/sec would be ludicrous, since lunar escape speed is less than 2.4 km/sec. And the deltaV required for that was assumed within the 15 km/sec of the "standard rocket".
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, when we send things out into space, they move in ballistic trajectories that we like to call "orbits".
One of the odd characteristics of an "orbit" is that you don't stop moving while "orbiting". Which means that anything put at an intermediate waypoint would, well, move away from that point.
Even worse, when your spacecraft reached the waypoint, if by some chance your resupply cache were there, it would be moving relative to you. Very quickly, in fact. Which means you'd either just smash into it, destroying both your spacecraft and your resupply cache, or you'd have to burn a buttload of fuel to match orbits, refuel, then burn another buttload of fuel to put yourself back in an orbit to reach Mars (or wherever you're headed).
In other words, it's not practical to do that sort of thing.
This is news?
It was announced late last year, and has appeared on /. at least once already.
Of course, Iridium involved spending $50 billion to build a system that sold something that not many people had a use for, at a really high price.
What this project sells may very well be at a very high price, but it certainly won't be something that not many people have a use for - pretty much all of us need electricity.
So has "United States". In 1860, it was plural. After the Civil War, it was singular.
Boxing gloves cause more damage than they prevent.
Boxing gloves are meant to protect a boxer's hands, not his opponent's head. They do that so well that a modern boxer can keep dishing out hurt long after an early 19th century bare-knuckles boxer would have had both hands incapacitated by his own blows.
Which allows the boxer to do more damage to his opponent, thus increasing the risk of severe damage to both parties in a fight.
And, oddly enough, we don't buy oil from Iraq, and never have, really.
Note also that while "there are lots and lots of real asshole leaders in the world, constantly threatening their neighbors", Iraq went past threats to invasions twice in ten years.
No, it doesn't happen anymore because only one Navy has any battleships left (and our battleships are mothballed till the next time we decide we really need them). Or any other surface ships larger than destroyers (excluding CV's, of course), for that matter.
And that's more a matter of battleships being expensive than being especially vulnerable. It's not like you can't put missiles on a battleship, after all, or any other thing that helps to make it harder to sink than, say, a destroyer.
While Bush-bashing is always fun, it should be pointed out that only Congress can fund things in the US Government.
Specifically, all spending has to originate with the House of Representatives, though actual practice frequently has both Houses creating spending bills in parallel, then working out disagreements later.
Quite so. If it qualifies as an unreasonable search. Otherwise, it doesn't necessarily require a warrant.
Not, mind you, that I think the Supremes will think it's a reasonable search. But I didn't think that Drunk Driving checkpoints were going to be approved either.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There is one phrase there that might of interest - "unreasonable searches and seizures". And there hangs the ACLU's case. Are these searches "unreasonable"?
In my opinion, they probably are.
But a good lawyer can make a lot of mileage out of one key word, and "unreasonable" will probably be the word more argued over in this lawsuit.
While this is certainly true, I should point out that more guns in the USA are used for target shooting than for killing.
Understand completely. I was just pointing out that there exist a large group of people who believe that tools can be evil. And those people would be delighted by the chance to name yet another tool to be evil incarnate.
IMO, men can be evil, and can use tools to commit evil acts. But the tools, in and of themselves, are never more than tools, and no more evil than a rock is evil.
Yes, a gun is a tool. So is a rock, for that matter....
Of course, people say that about guns all the time. So I'm assuming that the same sort of people would say the same sort of thing about a Trojan...
By "economic culture", you clearly mean "corporate culture". Privately owned businesses, even large ones, are not necessarily affected by this particular myopia.
And yet, I don't see a lot of private investors/businesses leaping in to this new "opportunity". And the ones who do leap in seem more interested in the potential tax breaks and free government money than in actually making something. I notice, for instance, in the news this AM, that a couple of renewable energy companies are considering picking up an old Ford plant to make into a factory complex. IF they can get some of that stimulus money, and IF they get about $125 million in tax credits/breaks. Please note that they're talking about spending about $100 million of their own money in exchange for considerably more than $100 million government money tossed into the pot.
There speaks the "voice of reason" in opposition to the notion that people should be well-educated, as opposed to highly trained....
So, you agree that this is going to hurt the American economy? Good, since most pro-Kyoto types have been insisting for years that it would help the economy rather than hurting it. At least you're rational enough to accept that. Which makes the real question one of "will the benefits (economic and otherwise, though ultimately everything is economics, even human rights) outweigh the costs?" And of course, the corollary, "When will we reach the point that the benefits exceed the cost?"
I'm curious as to why you think that the technology doesn't exist, by the way.
Certainly the industry doesn't exist, but solar cells are no big deal to make. Nor are windmills. Electric cars are only marginally useful outside major urban areas, but that's mostly an infrastructure problem.
However, what I'm really curious about is your conclusion that after we've spent a great deal of money developing this technology, the rest of the world will "jump on it". I take it you are expecting that in 20 years or so, windmills and solar power will be cheaper than coal power? If so, why?
Also, are you heavily invested in "green" power? If not, why not? It would be an incredibly good investment if, as you believe, everyone in the world will be buying into it in a short time.
No, that'll just send the Chinese economy into the crapper. And the American one as well. And the European one...
Note that there is NO solution to the Chinese problem right now. In fifty years, maybe we can start talking to them seriously about the issue. But they're ramping up to join the First World nations in terms of standard of living. They're not going to stop unless you force them to, and if you do, you'll be the root cause of a great deal of human misery.
Which just might make the Chinese think about distracting their people from their problems by a "short, victorious war".
Or, even worse from the US perspective, dump all those T-Bills they hold. They've still got us by the short hairs because they own such a large chunk of our national debt. Luckily, we've got them by the short hairs because their economy will tank if they stop exporting to us. Alas, passing tariffs such as you propose would remove all the reasons they might want to hang onto that share of our national debt in their own interest.
Net result of your proposal - a new worldwide recession much worse than the current one, and not one bit of reduction in CO2 output. Though, admittedly it would not increase so quickly, since no-one would be able to afford to build new power plants.
Or to replace old power plants with new, environmentally friendly ones....
Your second paragraph does not follow from your first.
While Obama got a lot of money from corporations, he also got a lot from individuals in small amounts (at least, he so advertised - not sure how true that really is). Enough so he could dispense with Federal Matching funds and still spend more money than any candidate in the history of the world.
Main thing I see coming out of your proposal is that corporations donate to campaigns more subtly, so you won't notice as much.
And that most candidates for office will be independently wealthy. You really want a Congress composed entirely of multimillionaires? And yes, I know that it's largely composed of multimillionaires now.
But if you want to make the price for sitting down at the table in a Presidential race that you have $100 million of your own money to spend on it, then pass the rules you've described. And be prepared for a lot of races with only one candidate....
I'll bite. What competitive advantage will we have, exactly?
And if using renewable power is so advantageous, why do we require legislation to make it happen? If it were profitable, wouldn't those people who are concerned solely with money be leaping in to reap the economic benefits?
Note, by the way, that I'm not arguing that fossil fuels are Good, and renewable power is Evil. But I am curious about how you solve a problem requiring that everyone be on board NOW without, well, everyone being on board now....
China has already said that it's not going to accept any binding limits on its pollution this next round of CO2 limiting. So has India. Which means that, whatever we do, CO2 levels are going to increase. Dramatically, since there are a lot of Chinese and Indians who are going to want a standard of living in the same timezone as our standard of living.
So, we set an example that China and India have already said they won't follow. Yah, it makes us less dependent on foreign oil, which is a good thing. But, no, it doesn't really do anything about Climate Change. Nor does it cause all those nations that aren't required to limit their CO2 emissions to suddenly say "Oh, noes! We must get with the program since the USA has joined in!!!".
No, bigotry is when you hate those who are different for no reason other than that they're different.
Racism is the belief that different races are, well, different - blacks are lazy, asians are smart, jews are money-grubbing, etc.
And it is quite possible to be racist without being bigoted. Or it was at one time, when it wasn't so clear that the racial stereotypes are just stereotypes.
H.P. Lovecraft was quite the racist. But his wife was Jewish (I'd really give a lot to know what those two talked about over dinner - "Honey, that Hebe Shylock over on 12th robbed me blind on that loan yesterday", "Dearest, that's Daddy you're talking about"). Far as I can tell, while he believed pretty much all the raciat stereotypes common to his period, he didn't actually let them color his relations with the people he knew, no matter their race....
I fail to see how any action by the USA short of nuclear devastation of China will stop China from building a coal plant equivalent every week.
And I still fail to see how limiting CO2 emissions in SOME countries will actually solve the Climate Change problem....
Actually, it's "free rein" as in letting your horses run without restraint.
Yes, it can, can't it?
No, the case will be handed back to Judge Kimball, and it'll be the same old case, with just his Summary Judgements (except the one about the money) reversed. So he'll have to preside over a trial, but Discovery is still over.
The Appeals judge retired right after he made this ruling. The trial judge is the same as it's always been - Kimball.
True enough. Alas, most Americans don't know where Nagasaki is, other than "somewhere in Japan".
Seriously, Seoul is a good base position for anything in Korea (300 miles away? Hell, the State Capital is farther off for some of us)
Umm, no. The average distance from Earth to Mars is somewhere around 239 million km.
You can't determine average Earth-to-Mars distance by subtracting the average distance Earth is from the Sun from the average distance Mars is from the Sun.
You were inattentive. The "aerobraking" comment was for going places FROM the moon, not TO the moon.
If we were talking about going TO the moon, then 5 km/sec would be ludicrous, since lunar escape speed is less than 2.4 km/sec. And the deltaV required for that was assumed within the 15 km/sec of the "standard rocket".