I see your point, but I fail to see how this will have any major effect. Anyone that wants these drugs can find them fairly easily. Bringing in a few model planes with 11 pounds of coke or something isn't going to change things much. The big problem is people bringing in 30 or 40 pounds in their tires or gas tanks, and drug trafficing cessenas that make it to the states. Until the DEA can catch all of these guys, the little 11 pound planes aren't going to make much of a difference. When they can catch all of the other methods of bringing narcotics into the country, then they will need something else to do, so they can try to catch model planes/boats/submarines that have a little bit in each of them.
You know, every advancement made in technology doesn't have to be a cure for cancer or something. There is more to life than the big things like that. Yeah, this is basically a few model airplaners playing with their toys, but why shouldn't they? If they are the first ones to do it then they should get the glory. You may not be able to see any major advancements coming from this, but you never know what may come from it down the road, good or bad.
Thats all very fine to say, but where is your proof? Do you have any?
And no, I didn't provide any either, but I stated that I was just going on what I had been told by certain members of the NASA community. I happen to live near Marshal Space Flight center and know many people that work there, so I feel that I am pretty well informed.
You know, I think that it would be nice for him to spend some of his money on philanthropic persuits as well, but it is his money and his decision. How smart would he be if he decided to base his spending habits on the advice of people who haven't managed to save any of their own money. Kinda stupid.
Besides, I think that a lot of people put too much attention on trying to make the rich give their money to the poor. Most of the time, if they wanted to do that, they would have been doing it all along and therefore wouldn't be as rich, and you would leave them alone.
The attention needs to be on the average people. It isn't going to do a lot of good if every multi-billionaire gave a couple of million dollars to the needy, but what if 100 million average people gave 50 bucks? I like the post that someone had earlier to have every slashdotter donate $1, then we wouldn't need his money.
Also, you're probably solving the wrong problem- the fuel is less than 1% of the cost of building and launching a space vehicle.
Where did you get that information? I am no expert so I am not necessarily trying to refute you, but it has been my understanding that fuel is the major cost of launching a space vehicle. Or at least the root of the problem. The shuttle itself is reusable, so a minimal amount of money is used to get it flight ready again. The SRB's are reuseable, but must be refueled with solid rocket fuel. However a new External Tank must be constructed for each launch. That is the biggest part of the assembly. This then must be filled with fuel.
I might be able to see where you are comeing from if you are referring to the R&D, construction, and man-hours involved in getting the space shuttle program running and building the shuttle, but if you are talking about an individual launch, then I would have to disagree.
By the way, for anyone who doesn't know. The NASA Space Launch Initiative is attempting to reduce the cost of a launching vehicles into space. Currently, it costs $100,000.00 to send 1 pound into space. So a 200 pound man would cost $20,000,000 to send into space. The Space Launch Initiative hopes to find a way to reduce that cost to only $10,000.00 per pound.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, but I fail to see how this will have any major effect. Anyone that wants these drugs can find them fairly easily. Bringing in a few model planes with 11 pounds of coke or something isn't going to change things much. The big problem is people bringing in 30 or 40 pounds in their tires or gas tanks, and drug trafficing cessenas that make it to the states. Until the DEA can catch all of these guys, the little 11 pound planes aren't going to make much of a difference. When they can catch all of the other methods of bringing narcotics into the country, then they will need something else to do, so they can try to catch model planes/boats/submarines that have a little bit in each of them.
You know, every advancement made in technology doesn't have to be a cure for cancer or something. There is more to life than the big things like that. Yeah, this is basically a few model airplaners playing with their toys, but why shouldn't they? If they are the first ones to do it then they should get the glory. You may not be able to see any major advancements coming from this, but you never know what may come from it down the road, good or bad.
Thats all very fine to say, but where is your proof? Do you have any? And no, I didn't provide any either, but I stated that I was just going on what I had been told by certain members of the NASA community. I happen to live near Marshal Space Flight center and know many people that work there, so I feel that I am pretty well informed.
You know, I think that it would be nice for him to spend some of his money on philanthropic persuits as well, but it is his money and his decision. How smart would he be if he decided to base his spending habits on the advice of people who haven't managed to save any of their own money. Kinda stupid. Besides, I think that a lot of people put too much attention on trying to make the rich give their money to the poor. Most of the time, if they wanted to do that, they would have been doing it all along and therefore wouldn't be as rich, and you would leave them alone. The attention needs to be on the average people. It isn't going to do a lot of good if every multi-billionaire gave a couple of million dollars to the needy, but what if 100 million average people gave 50 bucks? I like the post that someone had earlier to have every slashdotter donate $1, then we wouldn't need his money.
Also, you're probably solving the wrong problem- the fuel is less than 1% of the cost of building and launching a space vehicle. Where did you get that information? I am no expert so I am not necessarily trying to refute you, but it has been my understanding that fuel is the major cost of launching a space vehicle. Or at least the root of the problem. The shuttle itself is reusable, so a minimal amount of money is used to get it flight ready again. The SRB's are reuseable, but must be refueled with solid rocket fuel. However a new External Tank must be constructed for each launch. That is the biggest part of the assembly. This then must be filled with fuel. I might be able to see where you are comeing from if you are referring to the R&D, construction, and man-hours involved in getting the space shuttle program running and building the shuttle, but if you are talking about an individual launch, then I would have to disagree. By the way, for anyone who doesn't know. The NASA Space Launch Initiative is attempting to reduce the cost of a launching vehicles into space. Currently, it costs $100,000.00 to send 1 pound into space. So a 200 pound man would cost $20,000,000 to send into space. The Space Launch Initiative hopes to find a way to reduce that cost to only $10,000.00 per pound.
I don't know. To me it looks like the B-52 may be beneath the X. It just doesn't look like a scale picture to me. It's probably not quite that big.