Yeah, but a number of the lunar astronauts actually had classes on what they were looking at. Schmitt was simply the guy whos primary focus was science (which was really too bad; most of them should have been).
Actually, it WAS a republican admin that killed off our human launching. W killed it in 2004, and yet, Neil did not object. And when others that he had known and worked with recommended leaving constellation because of how bad the situation was, Mr. Armstrong chose to blame O.
I will say that up until 2 years ago, he had left politics out of the equation. However, that changed then.
Neil armstrong was not a baby boomer. In fact, baby boomers were born in the 50's, so many of them were teenagers to kids when Armstrong landed.
It was baby boomers that voted in reagan who gutted much of our science R&D as well as ran up massive deficits, followed by the likes of W, who also gutted science and our balanced budget.
Yes, we baby boomers are the one responsible for allowing bad presidents and parties to gut our nation. Even now, the space program was gutted by W/neo-cons. These same neo-cons are the ones who are responsible for preferring that American human launch be held up until 2022, using Russian and possibly Chinese launchers, rather than allow American private launchers to take hold.
Actually, many pilots, esp. commercial and military, are engineers. And as to the early astronauts being scientist, that was not as much. Most of them had several degrees, but it was normally related (engineering and math, or engineering and physics).
RIP Neil. You worked hard to get the slot and had fun for the ride.
I will say that he was a class act until recently. Over the course of the last couple of years, he allowed his politics to take hold. For example, he blasted SpaceX and stated that they would not be capable of launching humans, but spoke of private enterprise being required to take hold in space. Likewise, he blasted Obama for backing SpaceX, while ignoring the fact that the plan started in the mid-90s under NASA, killed by republicans, and then was restarted by Griffin and pushed by W.
Up until he put his loyalty to his political party, he WAS a class act. One that cared for America. Just in the last couple of years, did he seem to lose that. But I do not think that should taint what he accomplished.
While for the last 2 neo-cons and 1 republican admins, continued to run up deficits year after year, racking up a total of 12Trillion of the ~ 16T debt.
Of these, only Poppa Bush worked to actually bring down the deficit and that was only in his last year. Both, reagan and W ran it up all 16 years.
Fool us once, shame on you.
Fool us for 5 elections, shame on all of us.
It needs to stop. We need to quit electing neo-cons such as Romney/Ryan. These 2 speak of deficits, while what they have advanced as being their platform will only make things worse.
Joules unlimited is converting waste into diesel or ethanol via cyanobacteria. They have a prototype going in New Mexico and are gearing up for production plants. This will enable what is normally a cost center (waste treatment) to be turned into fuel that can be sold at current market values. What is interesting is that they claim that they can produce diesel at equivalence of $30/bl. With oil currently selling at 3.5x that, the difference is PURE profit.
The fact is, that uranium is increasingly not going to be an important issue. The reason is that over the next decade, the reactors will be of 2 designs:
1) something to burn up current waste. It will still require loads of 'waste' which it will burn up.
2) thorium reactors.
As such, pulling uranium is not that big of a deal.
Now, there is a group who is doing just this, but they are not getting it from the Ocean. Instead, they are getting it from geo-thermal energy plants. Simbol Materials is looking to pull minerals, in particular lihtium, from already concentrated fluids.
For now, they will go after Lithium, manganese and zinc, but with the idea that down the road, they will grab other minerals as they can be done economical.
What is interesting is that Lithium 'mined' this way, should be a fraction of the price than anything on the market today.
A simple compromise would solve this. If a building is served by 1 or more monopolies, all of them should be required to have net neutrality.
OTOH, if there is no monopoly with twisted pair (2 or more providers), then allow them to compete openly. i.e. drop the net neutrality requirements.
GPE converts the coal into methane at a cost of $4-5/MMBTU. Right now, In America, the costs of natural gas at the wellhead is 2.5/MMBTU. In Europe, it is around $8-10/MMBTU (most is imported at that cost). In China, it is $20/MMBTU. As such, China has invested 1.25 Billion into GPE. Why? Because they are running out pipelines to where the coal mines are to pick up the generated natural gas. So, rather than ship the coal back 1000 miles, it is cheaper to simply convert it to methane and then pipe it back. Now, you speak of efficiencies, while ignoring the whole system and the important issue: COSTS.
First off, coal plants have efficiencies on the order of 35-40 %. Why? Because they burn at lower temps and are loaded with large amounts of incomplete hydrocarbons as well as side elements. As such, you have incomplete burning. With NG, we now have burners that are just under 60% efficient. Why? Because you have 4H with 1 C and little to no side effects (some NOX, but not significant amounts).
Now, add on that the lose of efficiency for pollution control. With coal, you have to capture pollution POST burning. That is at high temps AND increased volume. You need to capture gases, elements, and fly ash. Here in America, just doing the little bit of current pollution control results in something like a 20% lose of energy. However, you will note that China has some of the worst pollution in the world. Why? Because few of the plants turn on pollution control due to loss of money. As such, China sea is one of the heaviest polluted in the world with loads of mercury. Sadly, it will not stay there and is entering into the rest of the world. Likewise, here in America 5-10% of the pollution reaching Colorado's National Park is from China. Most of that is their coal plants not running pollution controls.
However, if you do GPE's conversion upfront, you pull out all of the pollutants, break apart the hydrocarbon chains and then fully hydrogenate them. What with? H2O. Is there an energy cost for it? Yup. But with the catalysis, it is much lower than expected. More importantly, it is a LOW COST stream, and when it comes to energy, the issue is NOT energy efficiency, but economic costs.
GPE use catalysis to lower the energy requirements. In-situ approach does it by inexpensive means.
And Uranium does not drive cars, tractors, semi-trucks, etc.
In addition, other than burning up old 'waste' fuel, uranium reactors are going to be dead. Instead, it will be thorium due to safety issues and economics.
The fact is that there are a number of different formats. ipad and android tablets support most, if not all of the formats. The readers are limited to what that company wants.
If you want an inexpensive reader, pick up a google nexus 7 with 8 mb.
I had not seen that one before. But, I like it. Very Simple. Of course, metals to deal with that molten salt will be even more difficult than molten sodium. In addition, it will take time to get that approved.
Considering that I have a minor in chem, I HAVE witnessed it. In addition, America has already built multiple molten sodium reactor LONG ago. Japan had issues, but that was short-cuts. And you can simply use helium to connect water to sodium. Not quite as efficient, but it solves the problem.
And yet, the limeys are considering the PRISM for exactly what I am suggesting. It comes down to what makes more sense: simply throwing away all of this fuel and then relying on a mix of fossil fuels as well as AE, OR burning up what fuel that you have, so that your TRUE disposal costs go WAY down. And considering that we currently have more than 70,000 tonnes of waste in the USA, that is a LOT of money. OTOH, if we put in new reactors that make use of the old and current sites (minimal EPA studies), use the same factory produced reactors on these sites, and burn up the 'waste', then we can get down to below 10,000 tonnes on this. Now, costs are feasible.
China is building a number of new dams up in the himalyas. And they are capable of diverting large amounts of water from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. These do not look good since China denied that they were building dams, but then when shown the evidence from sats, they claimed that they are for flood control. Yet, the designs shows that they have NOTHING to do with flood control, but only as a diverting dams.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but a number of the lunar astronauts actually had classes on what they were looking at. Schmitt was simply the guy whos primary focus was science (which was really too bad; most of them should have been).
Actually, it WAS a republican admin that killed off our human launching. W killed it in 2004, and yet, Neil did not object. And when others that he had known and worked with recommended leaving constellation because of how bad the situation was, Mr. Armstrong chose to blame O.
I will say that up until 2 years ago, he had left politics out of the equation. However, that changed then.
Neil armstrong was not a baby boomer. In fact, baby boomers were born in the 50's, so many of them were teenagers to kids when Armstrong landed.
It was baby boomers that voted in reagan who gutted much of our science R&D as well as ran up massive deficits, followed by the likes of W, who also gutted science and our balanced budget.
Yes, we baby boomers are the one responsible for allowing bad presidents and parties to gut our nation. Even now, the space program was gutted by W/neo-cons. These same neo-cons are the ones who are responsible for preferring that American human launch be held up until 2022, using Russian and possibly Chinese launchers, rather than allow American private launchers to take hold.
Actually, many pilots, esp. commercial and military, are engineers. And as to the early astronauts being scientist, that was not as much. Most of them had several degrees, but it was normally related (engineering and math, or engineering and physics).
RIP Neil. You worked hard to get the slot and had fun for the ride.
I will say that he was a class act until recently. Over the course of the last couple of years, he allowed his politics to take hold. For example, he blasted SpaceX and stated that they would not be capable of launching humans, but spoke of private enterprise being required to take hold in space. Likewise, he blasted Obama for backing SpaceX, while ignoring the fact that the plan started in the mid-90s under NASA, killed by republicans, and then was restarted by Griffin and pushed by W.
Up until he put his loyalty to his political party, he WAS a class act. One that cared for America. Just in the last couple of years, did he seem to lose that. But I do not think that should taint what he accomplished.
While for the last 2 neo-cons and 1 republican admins, continued to run up deficits year after year, racking up a total of 12Trillion of the ~ 16T debt.
Of these, only Poppa Bush worked to actually bring down the deficit and that was only in his last year. Both, reagan and W ran it up all 16 years.
Fool us once, shame on you.
Fool us for 5 elections, shame on all of us.
It needs to stop. We need to quit electing neo-cons such as Romney/Ryan. These 2 speak of deficits, while what they have advanced as being their platform will only make things worse.
Joules unlimited is converting waste into diesel or ethanol via cyanobacteria. They have a prototype going in New Mexico and are gearing up for production plants. This will enable what is normally a cost center (waste treatment) to be turned into fuel that can be sold at current market values. What is interesting is that they claim that they can produce diesel at equivalence of $30/bl. With oil currently selling at 3.5x that, the difference is PURE profit.
Only if they allow blacks to join.
The fact is, that uranium is increasingly not going to be an important issue. The reason is that over the next decade, the reactors will be of 2 designs:
1) something to burn up current waste. It will still require loads of 'waste' which it will burn up.
2) thorium reactors.
As such, pulling uranium is not that big of a deal.
Now, if they can pull a number of other elements out of there, they would have something. If you look at this, you will see some rather useful elements:
Lithium
Metals such as Aluminum, iron, etc.
Rare earths such Scandium, Neodymium, etc
Perhaps even gold.
Now, there is a group who is doing just this, but they are not getting it from the Ocean. Instead, they are getting it from geo-thermal energy plants.
Simbol Materials is looking to pull minerals, in particular lihtium, from already concentrated fluids.
For now, they will go after Lithium, manganese and zinc, but with the idea that down the road, they will grab other minerals as they can be done economical.
What is interesting is that Lithium 'mined' this way, should be a fraction of the price than anything on the market today.
It is possible that is why we developed to this level and are not conquered by elsewhere.
Voip Phone. Networked intercoms. There are plenty of these.
A simple compromise would solve this. If a building is served by 1 or more monopolies, all of them should be required to have net neutrality. OTOH, if there is no monopoly with twisted pair (2 or more providers), then allow them to compete openly. i.e. drop the net neutrality requirements.
GPE converts the coal into methane at a cost of $4-5/MMBTU. Right now, In America, the costs of natural gas at the wellhead is 2.5/MMBTU. In Europe, it is around $8-10/MMBTU (most is imported at that cost). In China, it is $20/MMBTU. As such, China has invested 1.25 Billion into GPE. Why? Because they are running out pipelines to where the coal mines are to pick up the generated natural gas. So, rather than ship the coal back 1000 miles, it is cheaper to simply convert it to methane and then pipe it back. Now, you speak of efficiencies, while ignoring the whole system and the important issue: COSTS. First off, coal plants have efficiencies on the order of 35-40 %. Why? Because they burn at lower temps and are loaded with large amounts of incomplete hydrocarbons as well as side elements. As such, you have incomplete burning. With NG, we now have burners that are just under 60% efficient. Why? Because you have 4H with 1 C and little to no side effects (some NOX, but not significant amounts). Now, add on that the lose of efficiency for pollution control. With coal, you have to capture pollution POST burning. That is at high temps AND increased volume. You need to capture gases, elements, and fly ash. Here in America, just doing the little bit of current pollution control results in something like a 20% lose of energy. However, you will note that China has some of the worst pollution in the world. Why? Because few of the plants turn on pollution control due to loss of money. As such, China sea is one of the heaviest polluted in the world with loads of mercury. Sadly, it will not stay there and is entering into the rest of the world. Likewise, here in America 5-10% of the pollution reaching Colorado's National Park is from China. Most of that is their coal plants not running pollution controls. However, if you do GPE's conversion upfront, you pull out all of the pollutants, break apart the hydrocarbon chains and then fully hydrogenate them. What with? H2O. Is there an energy cost for it? Yup. But with the catalysis, it is much lower than expected. More importantly, it is a LOW COST stream, and when it comes to energy, the issue is NOT energy efficiency, but economic costs.
Odd. We have those issues all the time here in Denver. Hmm.
GPE use catalysis to lower the energy requirements. In-situ approach does it by inexpensive means.
And Uranium does not drive cars, tractors, semi-trucks, etc.
In addition, other than burning up old 'waste' fuel, uranium reactors are going to be dead. Instead, it will be thorium due to safety issues and economics.
for natural gas, it is 4 H per carbon.
For oil based, it is a little less than 2H per carbon (incomplete burning).
for coal, it is a little over 1 H per carbon due to about half burning.
Far more efficient to convert coal => methane then burn that. Interestingly, the engines and boilers for methane work well for hydrogen.
Yes, that has certainly done a great job in China, Russia, Poland, etc.
Great Point Energy.
ciris energy.
Cheaper AND CLEANer to convert coal to methane, then to burn coal directly (low efficiencies and you still need to recover the pollutants).
The fact is that there are a number of different formats. ipad and android tablets support most, if not all of the formats. The readers are limited to what that company wants.
If you want an inexpensive reader, pick up a google nexus 7 with 8 mb.
I had not seen that one before. But, I like it. Very Simple. Of course, metals to deal with that molten salt will be even more difficult than molten sodium. In addition, it will take time to get that approved.
Considering that I have a minor in chem, I HAVE witnessed it. In addition, America has already built multiple molten sodium reactor LONG ago. Japan had issues, but that was short-cuts. And you can simply use helium to connect water to sodium. Not quite as efficient, but it solves the problem.
And yet, the limeys are considering the PRISM for exactly what I am suggesting. It comes down to what makes more sense: simply throwing away all of this fuel and then relying on a mix of fossil fuels as well as AE, OR burning up what fuel that you have, so that your TRUE disposal costs go WAY down. And considering that we currently have more than 70,000 tonnes of waste in the USA, that is a LOT of money. OTOH, if we put in new reactors that make use of the old and current sites (minimal EPA studies), use the same factory produced reactors on these sites, and burn up the 'waste', then we can get down to below 10,000 tonnes on this. Now, costs are feasible.
Not a problem. There is no way to burn it ALL up. BUT, we can burn up most of it and what remains is fairly short lived.
China is building a number of new dams up in the himalyas. And they are capable of diverting large amounts of water from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. These do not look good since China denied that they were building dams, but then when shown the evidence from sats, they claimed that they are for flood control. Yet, the designs shows that they have NOTHING to do with flood control, but only as a diverting dams.
The AC was simply making threats. There is nothing to refute. I was pointing out the lack of logic involved in that.