I don't trust Google's conversions.:) I think their conversion is just like their spell-checker, i.e. based on reading a whole bunch of pages and then just guessing, based on all the pages it reads. Since very few people can do conversions properly (no good reason for that), I don't trust Google to do it for me.;)
Heh, as flamebaited as this is, I suggest you go take a look at the movies on the Armadillo site. They're getting very close to launching the big rocket and testing it's landing. Armadillo's got a rocket (it's a prototype) that can launch straight up and then hover to a landing. Doesn't look like they've tested the thing flying around in the atmosphere yet, though.
Impressive stuff, in spite of your flamebait-colored eyeglasses.
Um, yeah. And no matter how many times I look at that, I can't for the life of me remember how many tablespoons are in a cup? When the conversion is right there on the packaging for the stick of butter?
No, it's so that after we conquor you, we can plague you with so many little things you have to learn to adapt to your new overlords that you won't have time to even remember what your nationality was before we took over.
Er, I think, anyway.
Seriously, I think it's just part of good ol' American laze. I worked hard to learn the metric system and to be able to convert imperial units to metric when I was in school under the false belief that we'd be completely switched over by the time I grew up. After I grew up (arguably so, anyway), I forgot all that. Now I can't convert shit even in Imperial. How many cups are in a quart, again? How about teaspoons in a tablespoon? I think it's 3. And no matter how many times I cut up a stick of butter, I still can't remember the tablespoon -> cup conversion.:(
I, for one, welcome our new dangling participle overlords.
Don't you people realize that if you use a preposition, you have to have an object for the phrase? Would it be too hard to just add three characters to that sentence and *not* be a pretentious nerd?
The scale measured in Kg and I was able to say, "whoa! that's X pounds!"
Your kid only weighs X pounds? Sorry to hear that. My 10 month old baby boy is weighing in right about XXX pounds right now. And he's starting to walk!
Hmmmm, am I the only one left using Roman numbers? I guess if I'm gonna use this metric thing I'm going to have to upgrade to Arabic numbers, eh? Nah, it would cost too much.
For those of you who are hard of reading, here's what I wrote again (emphasis added):
So offering prizes that bring about competition to accomplish the goals NASA sets for the prizes (
the goals being in line with NASA's space mission), then NASA is accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they have several development projects to choose from rather than the one they sunk all their money into.
That translates to a more efficient NASA that spends less money on development (by offering it as prizes instead of contracting it) and gets more technology. More bang for the buck. Then NASA gets to purchase the technology at competitive rates rather than government-gouged rates in order to pursue goals that they can't even set right now because they're so caught up in the problems they have now. Offering prizes is a way *out* of NASA's current dilemma.
Let's summarize their current dilemma, shall we? They can't develop better orbiters because they don't have the money and congress won't approve it. They've been told to keep using the existing fleet. They can't go past LEO because they don't have the money to develop the ships to do it, they're spending it all on the current fleet. So they're stuck at LEO. How does NASA break free? By getting someone else to develop better orbiters, getting permission to buy them (easy enough, private industry has a unique way of proving technology), and then using them. How can they do it inexpensively and with congressional approval? By offering prizes.
Take it a few more steps down. NASA decides they want to put an observatory on the moon, to be always manned by 10 people or so. But they can't develop the technology to go to the moon, and the stuff used previously isn't going to accomplish this goal. They can already get to LEO cheaply (they gave away a prize for it, remember?), but now they've gotta get to the moon. So they put out another prize, someone wins it, and NASA gets to buy some lunar landers that are cheap cheap cheap and build their observatory. They get the technology at a fraction of the price they would have spent developing it, and then they get additional price cuts because of the competitive market. Furthermore, they don't even have to build the entire moonbase, they can just install their observatory near the privately-funded moonbase that'll get built.
It's a winning proposition for NASA. They get to find better ways to explore space, and they get to actually do it instead of just talking about it.
If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA?
Um, isn't NASA's mission to promote the exploration of space, or something like that? So offering prizes that bring about competition to accomplish the goals NASA sets for the prizes (the goals being in line with NASA's space mission), then NASA is accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they have several development projects to choose from rather than the one they sunk all their money into.
It creates a market for NASA, and at the same time creates a market for the rest of us. So NASA gets to accomplish their mission in a much more cost effective fashion all the way around, and the rest of us get better access to space.
but how on Earth (no pun intended) was the above comment modded insightful?
Perhaps he was modded insightful when the mod meant funny, but the mod wanted him to get actual karma for the mod? I've noticed people seem to be doing that lately as a form of protest against the fact that funny mods don't get karma anymore....
I know nothing about the prototyping and design of experimental aircraft but maybe someone with some knowledge of history can fill me in.
Disclaimer: I don't know either, but I do have experience in continually changing designs and fabricating/modifying parts to execute those changes.
First, it's not possible to make a blanket statement "If we change it too much it'll become unstable because of the changes". For each change you make, you have to examine the type of change called for. If you're changing a part that you can unbolt, fabricate a new part to new specs, and the specs on the mating part do not change, then you introduce no additional instability by the change itself. A real-world example is modifying your car's transmission, such as bolting a 6-speed up where you previously had a 5-speed. If the 6-speed is designed to keep the engine within the same operational parameteres as the 5-speed kept it, then you have introduced no additional instability. However, if the 6-speed calls for different operational parameters of the engine, then you have introduced instability, however slight it may be.
If you're talking about structural changes that require cutting/welding, then repeated changes are likely to introduce instability. Your end-result will depend on the welds themselves as much as the other pieces of metal that are welded together, and a newly fabricated piece without the welds may not be as strong (or might be stronger) than the swiss cheese you used on your prototype.
Also, if you have to repeatedly modify various mounts and other parts in order to accomodate parts changes, you *might* introduce instability. Near as I can tell, the best thing to do is to pull all the parts that require updated specs to accomodate the change you make and fabricate new parts to all the new specs. Practically, you have to examine the specs themselves and the actual capabilities to determine if you actually need to be that thorough or if the parts are going to hold up fine against the new specs even though they were designed for different specs.
Naturally, I only know what I do from modifying cars and various gadgets around the house, so I don't know how realistic what i'm saying is in relation to experimental spacecraft.;)
Speaking of which, where are they holding the signups for being ballast on the X-Prize flights? I at least have the skill of sitting around and being massful;)
No shit. I'm weighing in right at 200lbs, and that's how much one of the dummies has to weigh, right? Where do I sign up to be a dummy?;)
Though I'm not sure what it says about his judgement.
Maybe he's just not the kind of pussy that tries to back out of anything potentially dangerous at the first sign of trouble? It takes balls to be a test pilot, and the stuff you cited indicates that all he did was apply his balls to the situation.
Really, the kind of test flights you seem to want are the kind NASA gives us. Aren't we trying to replace NASA?
Because if they weren't deterred once by the system, do you really want them living in your society? The mission of the police is to "keep order", and *that's it*. They don't enforce the laws, as much as they say they do. They execute the law. They don't interpret it in any way, that's for the courts to decide. When an officer charges you with a crime, that doesn't mean you did it. It doesn't mean the state thinks you did it. It only means that you're going to go to trial in front of a jury of your peers and everyone is going to work together (heh heh) to figure out whether or not you did it, and if so, to determine what they can do to either rehabilitate you or to deter you from doing it again.
If you define crime as "any behavior which damages or significantly endangers any other member of society", then people who commit crimes need to either learn not to or be removed from society.
If you define crime as "any behavior which is against the law" then you've got bigger problems than the penal system.
The penal system, theoretically, is a Good Thing. But it's absolutely no substitute for taking direct and personal responsibility for your own safety. Quite the contrary, too much dependence on the penal system, the courts, and the police will create a state where the individual no longer has the freedom to take direct and personal responsibility for his own life. The state will have to take that freedom from you in order to provide you with the protection you need, since you'll be so dependent on the police, the courts, and the penal system.
And finally, arresting, prosecuting, and jailing criminals, as it works now, isn't about protecting anyone. It's about "justice", which is a politically-correct way of saying "vengeance". *That* is what the system does now. It's either slap on the wrists and hope you don't do it again or out and out revenge served cold.
But you're not *required* to receive those services. You can be poor as dirt in the desert and you don't have to give up your ID to the government. But when you go ask them to help out, *then* you have to prove who you are, and not only that, but why you think you should be *given* money for nothing.
I believe in the original intended purpose of social security, welfare, etc. I think it's a fair trade that you have to give up certain information in order to receive those services. Without that information, how the hell is the government supposed to figure out who qualifies for the service and who doesn't?
But that's not what the GP said, is it.;) The GP said "But I in *NO* way believe that they gov't should be able to demand my papers in any situation." I grokked that as "I don't think the government can demand my ID arbitrarily". As in, they have to have a good reason. The cop that stops me for speeding (a law I oppose, btw) has to see my ID so he can write me the ticket. I can refuse to give up the ID. He can also arrest me so I can serve my fine in jail instead, along with interfering with justice or whatever it's called. But a cop that just sees me in a store, I don't think he should be able to ask my ID on "suspicion that I will commit theft in that store".
For example, I don't think this should have happened at all. However, in that situation, the cop had all the power, so I tried my best to accomodate him without getting into trouble. As for my rights? You don't claim those when the cop starts looking for you. You claim those in a court of law. They *can* hold you for too long, in violation of due process. And then you can claim your rights in the matter, have the charges dismissed, and sue the piss out of them for fucking you over. But if they just lock you up and throw away the key, what are you going to do? Can't Do Shit. Not unless someone outside knows what's going on and can go claim your rights for you.
I have to say, she nicely put into words my own feelings on both the second and third movies after watching the dvd releases. I used to dislike TOD because it was boring in the beginning, then took off. So I was sleepy when it took off and then it just exhausted me. I used to love TLC because it was so fun and funny. Now I've reversed my opinions, surprisingly for the same reasons. I find TOD builds slowly, and then when it breaks I've got all this tension that's built up and TOD takes it and rides for the rest of the movie. Almost in tears when Indy waves his arm and the kids come running back into the village. But this Alexandra chick was spot-on with what's wrong with the third movie. The joke where Indy says "With any luck, he's got the grail already" is exactly what Marcus Brody is all about. Cutting to him running around "Does anybody speak English?" totally ruined the character.
And TOD has held up better in the special fx department. TLC looks sooooo fake in so many places, and it always has. I saw that one in the theater when it was brand new. The tank falling off the cliff always looked like a Tyco plastic tank toy being rolled over those cliffs they use to make GI Joe commercials, and it was always so completely obvious that Harrison Ford and James Bond were sitting in a blue-screen room on a stupid biplane model. But TOD looks real, every step of the way. Even the mine chase looks real (although I can't watch the mine chase without having flashbacks of the arcade game). TOD is just really really good. The only real problems I have with it are the girl who's only useful for saying "You're gonna get killed chasing your damn fortune and glory" and for being someone for Harrison Ford to talk shit to.
Ah well. Conventional wisdom about what's the better movie never holds out for me. I like Star Trek V, too.;) And the second back to the future movie is my favorite.
Frankly, that comment totally trivializes the entire Holocaust. This person was not stopped or arrested for being a Jew, or gay, or black, or female, or anything else like that. He was arrested because he refused to tell a police officer who he was while he was being detained as a suspect in a case of assault.
Frankly, you're a complete idiot. GP looked like a reference to "First they came for *these guys*, but I wasn't one of them so I didn't speak up. Then they came for *these other guys*, but I wasn't one of them so I didn't speak up. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up."
It's a matter of going so fast that you continuously miss the Earth.
Well if it's that easy, why don't they just go up as high as they want and then just forget that they're supposed to fall back down. Really, if astronauts weren't so busy focusing on how they don't want to fall, the problem would just solve itself.
Not necessarily, provided the infinite fuel supply is already where the ship is at all points in its journey, such as a zero-point field that it draws energy off of.
Looks like the problem is solved once again. Improbability can be infinite, so we just need a drive that'll use improbability as its fuel supply. I suggest a course of research along these lines:
Create a device that will generate a finite field of improbability. Create this device to test the hypothesis that "Any object can be created if you can calculate the probability at which such an object will appear 'out of thin air'."
Test the device by first using it to, say, remove someone's clothes at a party or somesuch nonsense.
If successful, calculate the level of improbability at which a machine capable of generating a field of improbability of infinite size will just 'appear out of thin air'.
Test the machine to see if it can generate a field of improbability great enough to create the new machine. If not, re-engineer until it can.
Now run the machine and build the ensuing space craft.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I can clearly see that all you have to do to make space travel really feasible is change the gravitational constant of the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a joke, I am aware that the American running dogs spell things differently.
Actually, American running dogs smell things just like every other dog in the world.
I don't trust Google's conversions. :) I think their conversion is just like their spell-checker, i.e. based on reading a whole bunch of pages and then just guessing, based on all the pages it reads. Since very few people can do conversions properly (no good reason for that), I don't trust Google to do it for me. ;)
$1 billion to the first person to establish some sort of viable industry in orbit.
Um, I think that prize is already being offered by basic economics. Or something comparable, at least.
I think Anonymous Coward url postings should automatically be made links under the assumption that ACs are too stupid to do it themselves.
The rest of us can write html, right?
Heh, as flamebaited as this is, I suggest you go take a look at the movies on the Armadillo site. They're getting very close to launching the big rocket and testing it's landing. Armadillo's got a rocket (it's a prototype) that can launch straight up and then hover to a landing. Doesn't look like they've tested the thing flying around in the atmosphere yet, though.
Impressive stuff, in spite of your flamebait-colored eyeglasses.
Um, yeah. And no matter how many times I look at that, I can't for the life of me remember how many tablespoons are in a cup? When the conversion is right there on the packaging for the stick of butter?
Otherwise, thanks for the help. ;)
No, it's so that after we conquor you, we can plague you with so many little things you have to learn to adapt to your new overlords that you won't have time to even remember what your nationality was before we took over.
Er, I think, anyway.
Seriously, I think it's just part of good ol' American laze. I worked hard to learn the metric system and to be able to convert imperial units to metric when I was in school under the false belief that we'd be completely switched over by the time I grew up. After I grew up (arguably so, anyway), I forgot all that. Now I can't convert shit even in Imperial. How many cups are in a quart, again? How about teaspoons in a tablespoon? I think it's 3. And no matter how many times I cut up a stick of butter, I still can't remember the tablespoon -> cup conversion. :(
I, for one, welcome our new dangling participle overlords.
Don't you people realize that if you use a preposition, you have to have an object for the phrase? Would it be too hard to just add three characters to that sentence and *not* be a pretentious nerd?
The scale measured in Kg and I was able to say, "whoa! that's X pounds!"
Your kid only weighs X pounds? Sorry to hear that. My 10 month old baby boy is weighing in right about XXX pounds right now. And he's starting to walk!
Hmmmm, am I the only one left using Roman numbers? I guess if I'm gonna use this metric thing I'm going to have to upgrade to Arabic numbers, eh? Nah, it would cost too much.
For those of you who are hard of reading, here's what I wrote again (emphasis added):
That translates to a more efficient NASA that spends less money on development (by offering it as prizes instead of contracting it) and gets more technology. More bang for the buck. Then NASA gets to purchase the technology at competitive rates rather than government-gouged rates in order to pursue goals that they can't even set right now because they're so caught up in the problems they have now. Offering prizes is a way *out* of NASA's current dilemma.
Let's summarize their current dilemma, shall we? They can't develop better orbiters because they don't have the money and congress won't approve it. They've been told to keep using the existing fleet. They can't go past LEO because they don't have the money to develop the ships to do it, they're spending it all on the current fleet. So they're stuck at LEO. How does NASA break free? By getting someone else to develop better orbiters, getting permission to buy them (easy enough, private industry has a unique way of proving technology), and then using them. How can they do it inexpensively and with congressional approval? By offering prizes.
Take it a few more steps down. NASA decides they want to put an observatory on the moon, to be always manned by 10 people or so. But they can't develop the technology to go to the moon, and the stuff used previously isn't going to accomplish this goal. They can already get to LEO cheaply (they gave away a prize for it, remember?), but now they've gotta get to the moon. So they put out another prize, someone wins it, and NASA gets to buy some lunar landers that are cheap cheap cheap and build their observatory. They get the technology at a fraction of the price they would have spent developing it, and then they get additional price cuts because of the competitive market. Furthermore, they don't even have to build the entire moonbase, they can just install their observatory near the privately-funded moonbase that'll get built.
It's a winning proposition for NASA. They get to find better ways to explore space, and they get to actually do it instead of just talking about it.
Um, to find new customers?
If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA?
Um, isn't NASA's mission to promote the exploration of space, or something like that? So offering prizes that bring about competition to accomplish the goals NASA sets for the prizes (the goals being in line with NASA's space mission), then NASA is accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they have several development projects to choose from rather than the one they sunk all their money into.
It creates a market for NASA, and at the same time creates a market for the rest of us. So NASA gets to accomplish their mission in a much more cost effective fashion all the way around, and the rest of us get better access to space.
How exactly is it bad for NASA, again?
but how on Earth (no pun intended) was the above comment modded insightful?
Perhaps he was modded insightful when the mod meant funny, but the mod wanted him to get actual karma for the mod? I've noticed people seem to be doing that lately as a form of protest against the fact that funny mods don't get karma anymore....
Whats truly sad is your sense of humour. He didn't die, there was no tragic accident. Jokes are comming.
And even if he did die, what would 'we' be coming up with? SS1 = Scratch --
Oh hell. NASA is much easier to work with. 'Need Another Seven Astronauts' and all.
I know nothing about the prototyping and design of experimental aircraft but maybe someone with some knowledge of history can fill me in.
Disclaimer: I don't know either, but I do have experience in continually changing designs and fabricating/modifying parts to execute those changes.
First, it's not possible to make a blanket statement "If we change it too much it'll become unstable because of the changes". For each change you make, you have to examine the type of change called for. If you're changing a part that you can unbolt, fabricate a new part to new specs, and the specs on the mating part do not change, then you introduce no additional instability by the change itself. A real-world example is modifying your car's transmission, such as bolting a 6-speed up where you previously had a 5-speed. If the 6-speed is designed to keep the engine within the same operational parameteres as the 5-speed kept it, then you have introduced no additional instability. However, if the 6-speed calls for different operational parameters of the engine, then you have introduced instability, however slight it may be.
If you're talking about structural changes that require cutting/welding, then repeated changes are likely to introduce instability. Your end-result will depend on the welds themselves as much as the other pieces of metal that are welded together, and a newly fabricated piece without the welds may not be as strong (or might be stronger) than the swiss cheese you used on your prototype.
Also, if you have to repeatedly modify various mounts and other parts in order to accomodate parts changes, you *might* introduce instability. Near as I can tell, the best thing to do is to pull all the parts that require updated specs to accomodate the change you make and fabricate new parts to all the new specs. Practically, you have to examine the specs themselves and the actual capabilities to determine if you actually need to be that thorough or if the parts are going to hold up fine against the new specs even though they were designed for different specs.
Naturally, I only know what I do from modifying cars and various gadgets around the house, so I don't know how realistic what i'm saying is in relation to experimental spacecraft. ;)
When was the last time you saw any innovation in commercial aviation?
September 11, 2001
Sure, mod me down, troll and all. It's an honest answer, at least.
Speaking of which, where are they holding the signups for being ballast on the X-Prize flights? I at least have the skill of sitting around and being massful ;)
No shit. I'm weighing in right at 200lbs, and that's how much one of the dummies has to weigh, right? Where do I sign up to be a dummy? ;)
Though I'm not sure what it says about his judgement.
Maybe he's just not the kind of pussy that tries to back out of anything potentially dangerous at the first sign of trouble? It takes balls to be a test pilot, and the stuff you cited indicates that all he did was apply his balls to the situation.
Really, the kind of test flights you seem to want are the kind NASA gives us. Aren't we trying to replace NASA?
Because if they weren't deterred once by the system, do you really want them living in your society? The mission of the police is to "keep order", and *that's it*. They don't enforce the laws, as much as they say they do. They execute the law. They don't interpret it in any way, that's for the courts to decide. When an officer charges you with a crime, that doesn't mean you did it. It doesn't mean the state thinks you did it. It only means that you're going to go to trial in front of a jury of your peers and everyone is going to work together (heh heh) to figure out whether or not you did it, and if so, to determine what they can do to either rehabilitate you or to deter you from doing it again.
If you define crime as "any behavior which damages or significantly endangers any other member of society", then people who commit crimes need to either learn not to or be removed from society.
If you define crime as "any behavior which is against the law" then you've got bigger problems than the penal system.
The penal system, theoretically, is a Good Thing. But it's absolutely no substitute for taking direct and personal responsibility for your own safety. Quite the contrary, too much dependence on the penal system, the courts, and the police will create a state where the individual no longer has the freedom to take direct and personal responsibility for his own life. The state will have to take that freedom from you in order to provide you with the protection you need, since you'll be so dependent on the police, the courts, and the penal system.
And finally, arresting, prosecuting, and jailing criminals, as it works now, isn't about protecting anyone. It's about "justice", which is a politically-correct way of saying "vengeance". *That* is what the system does now. It's either slap on the wrists and hope you don't do it again or out and out revenge served cold.
But you're not *required* to receive those services. You can be poor as dirt in the desert and you don't have to give up your ID to the government. But when you go ask them to help out, *then* you have to prove who you are, and not only that, but why you think you should be *given* money for nothing.
I believe in the original intended purpose of social security, welfare, etc. I think it's a fair trade that you have to give up certain information in order to receive those services. Without that information, how the hell is the government supposed to figure out who qualifies for the service and who doesn't?
But that's not what the GP said, is it. ;) The GP said "But I in *NO* way believe that they gov't should be able to demand my papers in any situation." I grokked that as "I don't think the government can demand my ID arbitrarily". As in, they have to have a good reason. The cop that stops me for speeding (a law I oppose, btw) has to see my ID so he can write me the ticket. I can refuse to give up the ID. He can also arrest me so I can serve my fine in jail instead, along with interfering with justice or whatever it's called. But a cop that just sees me in a store, I don't think he should be able to ask my ID on "suspicion that I will commit theft in that store".
For example, I don't think this should have happened at all. However, in that situation, the cop had all the power, so I tried my best to accomodate him without getting into trouble. As for my rights? You don't claim those when the cop starts looking for you. You claim those in a court of law. They *can* hold you for too long, in violation of due process. And then you can claim your rights in the matter, have the charges dismissed, and sue the piss out of them for fucking you over. But if they just lock you up and throw away the key, what are you going to do? Can't Do Shit. Not unless someone outside knows what's going on and can go claim your rights for you.
I have to say, she nicely put into words my own feelings on both the second and third movies after watching the dvd releases. I used to dislike TOD because it was boring in the beginning, then took off. So I was sleepy when it took off and then it just exhausted me. I used to love TLC because it was so fun and funny. Now I've reversed my opinions, surprisingly for the same reasons. I find TOD builds slowly, and then when it breaks I've got all this tension that's built up and TOD takes it and rides for the rest of the movie. Almost in tears when Indy waves his arm and the kids come running back into the village. But this Alexandra chick was spot-on with what's wrong with the third movie. The joke where Indy says "With any luck, he's got the grail already" is exactly what Marcus Brody is all about. Cutting to him running around "Does anybody speak English?" totally ruined the character.
And TOD has held up better in the special fx department. TLC looks sooooo fake in so many places, and it always has. I saw that one in the theater when it was brand new. The tank falling off the cliff always looked like a Tyco plastic tank toy being rolled over those cliffs they use to make GI Joe commercials, and it was always so completely obvious that Harrison Ford and James Bond were sitting in a blue-screen room on a stupid biplane model. But TOD looks real, every step of the way. Even the mine chase looks real (although I can't watch the mine chase without having flashbacks of the arcade game). TOD is just really really good. The only real problems I have with it are the girl who's only useful for saying "You're gonna get killed chasing your damn fortune and glory" and for being someone for Harrison Ford to talk shit to.
Ah well. Conventional wisdom about what's the better movie never holds out for me. I like Star Trek V, too. ;) And the second back to the future movie is my favorite.
Frankly, that comment totally trivializes the entire Holocaust. This person was not stopped or arrested for being a Jew, or gay, or black, or female, or anything else like that. He was arrested because he refused to tell a police officer who he was while he was being detained as a suspect in a case of assault.
Frankly, you're a complete idiot. GP looked like a reference to "First they came for *these guys*, but I wasn't one of them so I didn't speak up. Then they came for *these other guys*, but I wasn't one of them so I didn't speak up. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up."
It's a matter of going so fast that you continuously miss the Earth.
Well if it's that easy, why don't they just go up as high as they want and then just forget that they're supposed to fall back down. Really, if astronauts weren't so busy focusing on how they don't want to fall, the problem would just solve itself.
Not necessarily, provided the infinite fuel supply is already where the ship is at all points in its journey, such as a zero-point field that it draws energy off of.
Looks like the problem is solved once again. Improbability can be infinite, so we just need a drive that'll use improbability as its fuel supply. I suggest a course of research along these lines:
Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I can clearly see that all you have to do to make space travel really feasible is change the gravitational constant of the universe.