and yes, we do obey international convention. The treaties say that no weapon can be designed for the purpose of taking out somebodies vision. These lasers are NOT designed for that purpose. Just like many bombs are not designed to kill, there is collateral damage. The ATL was designed to DESTROY a target similar to how a bomb would work. Likewise, the ABL is designed to collapse a sidewall of a missile. If somebody 'hardens' it causes the collateral damage, how is that America's fault?
Weapons like this actually make an ICBM strike *more* likely against the US. If conventional war were to break out between the US and a country like China, with neither party really wanting a nuclear escalation but reserving their nukes as a deterrent, they'd be afraid that if they lost the ability to effectively shoot down aircraft over their territory they'd also lose the ability to launch ICBM's in case of escalation. So, at the first sign of the US gaining air superiority, they'd go ahead and launch ICBM's.
Not really. First, this is the ATL. It is a different craft with a different mission. It is designed to take out targets on the ground. Second, for us to take out China's missile, we would have to have multiples of these craft located deep inside of this countries AND all over the world. The reason is that China has a number of boomers and is building 1-2 new nuclear boomers EACH YEAR. In fact, they will surpass America's count in the next 2 years. As it is, China now has boomers patroling both the American Atlantic and Pacific seaboards as well as the Mexican gulf (Venezuela has begun quietly allowing them to have port calls). We also know that China has at least 10 boomers, and will surpass it within 4 years (more likely 2). In addition, to be able to take out all of China's sites with this would require us to be in every country that surrounds China, with multiple aircraft (and russia would require at least 4 to 8 of these). Think we can swing that? Neither does China. TO be honest, we will probable need a lot more. China appears to be building new nuclear warheads. They restarted their factory last decade. They started their build-up before we decided anything about the ABLs.
Finally, the ABL shooting horizontally will have a range of around 500-700. It it probable that it would have a range far shorter over china due to their pollution. In addition, this craft will become more ineffective on 2'nd and third round since dust would have been kicked into the air.
Neither the ATL nor the ABL will be a threat to China's missiles.
Everyone sane enough to manage that task would be too sane to do a one-way mission.
And yet, most of the astronauts say that they would go. Interestingly, a number of the astronauts wanted to do Hubble, EVEN IF IT MEANT a real risk. In fact, everytime a person goes up in the shuttle, they know that they are putting it on the line. Why, even the guys who went to the moon, or launched for the first KNEW that they were putting on the line. They KNEW that it might be one-way. And yet, they did it. Just because somebody goes to mars does not mean that it will be a short death sentence or that it is a real one-way. It means that they may be there for 1 year, or for 10 years. And if they are there for 10 years, they may be able to come back once a base is built.
Wow, get angry much WindBourne?
Hmmm. Wow. Sorry about that. That really WAS very rude on my part. I was looking at my post and another that I did and just realized that my ex had gotten under my skin. Sorry about that. I really did take it out on you and should not have.
Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.
Well that is not really true. They will have plenty of CO2 there, as well as iron oxide from which they can break the oxygen from, esp. iron. But the CO2 is easily converted by plants (though will need to provide water or more likely some H2, and it will be slow). BTW, once we strip an O from CO2, we have CO which is really useful for combining with Iron.
And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years. Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?
Actually, that is not the idea. The idea is to send ppl there on a one-way to establish a forward base. Once established, it will be easy to bring in scientists. But the original ppl that go there would be to build out a place for others. With that said, I would be real surprised if the first group of ppl do not do all of it. That is, they will engineer and build future facilities, but will also build and service robots to search the planet.
Finally, the last rant was not about you. I had just read some of the neo-cons positions papers that want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and was thinking of a number of the neo-cons that put us in this hell have flipped their attitude recently about Afghanistan as well as going to the moon or mars. Drives me batty when these ppl back such operations as Iraq/Afghanistan for 6 years, but now want us out when we are close to finally driving AQ/Taliban into the ground (and we are, in spite of the garbage in the paper; that is why Taliban is getting very aggressive). Likewise, we need for ppl to be willing to take us to the moon and mars, but they are saying that these are waste of money. I will say that if we send ppl to mars and they are JUST to go there, do science, and die, then it will be a waste of money. BUT, if they go there and build out a place (obviously in the ground), then it will be worth it for the future, even if these ppl die.
The difference is that for orbital, you have to send raw material. On mars, you have lots of raw material to work with; Iron; CO2, H20, Nitrogen, etc. All of those items make settlements much cheaper, easier.
With that said, I think that the idea of ISS IS to get water and gases recycling and having very little waste. Perhaps at some point we will do some form of hydroponics there.
And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.
Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.
Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.
I have never understood why would go to such a remote location for only a year or two. I have suggested many times here that ppl should be sent on one-way missions. If we establish a forward base, THEN we can bring them back, if they desire. My guess is that anybody who goes there will want to stay. In the end, the hardest part will be to get them to be self sufficient in terms of O2, water, energy, food, and of course, some light weight manufacturing (esp. on robotics). That is not as hard as it sounds. In fact, I suspect that it will be easier to do that, than to build 2 way traffic.
That would be an interesting direction of investigation. Yeah, we really need to investigate this better. The reason is that we investigate virus that show short-term symptoms. It took us forever to locate prions because we were so damn certain that only amino acids provided a map so were not looking there. Likewise, I believe that we are not seeing all the virus and bacteria because their SYMPTOMS are over LONG TIMELINES, rather than short ones. I have come to the conclusions that if we examine our DNA, we will find simiularities in ppl that live in geological similar areas, but have no other relations. I think that this will be more so say in America where you have ppl that are from radically different genetic make-up. For example, my wife is Indian and I am Scottish/Germanic/froggie/limie. My genetics should be different. But I think that since we have been living together, that we probably have swapped a few of these unknown virus and have actually had various cells mutated to be similar. Obviously if that gets into stem lines, then we see long term genetic shifts. By doing these studies, I think that it would be a useful way to find virus.
You have so many things wrong here that there is absolutely NO reason to try and correct you on it. Just so that you know, all virus incorporate their RNA/DNA back into your DNA. Some will actually excise snippets of your DNA out to replace theirs in there. And mutations are not just base pair changes, but also addition as well as deletions. Finally, just because a virus can hit any of the chromosomes does not preclude the ability to hit the y chromosomes.
Basically, they should be looking at the men that are from the same place (assuming that one of the two live in the exact same area and others ppl can be found). I think that they will find many of them have the same sets of mutations. The reason is that I believe that many of these mutations are from virus, not from random mutations. If from radiation/chemical (i.e. random), then you will not see the same mutations across ppl that exist in same area. But if from virus, you will see that many of these are similar (though possibly not in the exact same area of the strands).
That is EXACTLY correct. The internet was expensive in the early days. Now, most ppl are on it and it is mostly dirt cheap (US broadband is a rip off, but that is because they are all monopolies). We are sitting on the edge of reasonable access to space. Once the demand is created, then the innovators will follow. So, how to create the demand?
We are already getting launchers, though to be honest, I would very much like to see us fund a bit more for Human launches. I would not mind seeing Orion light as well as Scaled SS3 and SpaceDev's DreamChasers get shots at some speed up money.
Help Bigelow to get started on their private space station by buying several of their units to add to the ISS (and attach them). This provides a another destination.
Do a COTs for tugs and fuel depot in space. Have these clean up space as well as reposition sats. For example, China's recent mistake could easily be taken care of by a tug, though it will require that the sat have a 'hook' or a 'hitch' to move it around with.
Have FEMA and DOD be willing to buy solar power. Fema's arch could be done easily. But up the sat and then have it beam to a plane or a balloon/blimp that is around 50-60K ft. From there, have it beam to multiple smaller collectors on the ground. That way, even if it is 10MW of power from space, we may get say 10 x 250KW small receivers on the ground. Spreading that much power around a disaster area could be real useful.
Finally, have some COTs work for lunar lander. We need multiple types.
Hopefully, the above would trigger a build out by private money. If so, that would be our "Internet" approach to creating jobs. Finally, it would allow NASA to get back to doing what it does best; R/D cutting edge tech, such as VASMIR, as well as focus on basic sciences. Hopefully, somebody will rethink the ISS. Can not believe that we killed the centrifuge. That was INSANE.
America, along with western EU, were the most innovative countries going. The reason is that we had the infrastructure to building ideas in a reasonable fashion. We had lots of cheap raw material and we encouraged it by pushing engineers. As such, it was the lone innovators that pushed thing. Also, the US gov had until 1982, pushed all sorts of RD for the basic science.
America was primed to be a technical innovator.
But under reagan and then under W, America backed off from basic science RD. In addition, we have been allowing our manufacturing to flow to China and Software to India. Neither of these countries have the infrastructure that the west has, BUT they will get it. Once it is there, then you will see a resurgence in technical progress.
Quite simply a hurricane could knock out power for weeks if not months and a ground station that solar power is beamed to would not change that.
A simple ground station will do little to nothing. OTH, a set of portable smallish receivers brought in AFTER the hurricane and hooked into the transmissions lines in various places MIGHT work. Obviously, it would have to be studied. But, I noticed that you have not said why it can not work, other than to say that it can not. Exactly what do you base that on?
My dad lives near Stuart Florida. Many of the powerlines are actually up post hurricane. It is just not continuous. So, a crew in a truck can come and drop in receivers that they can then hook quickly to the various lines. It will not power everything, but it would bring up enough to enable rescuers and ppl to recover quickly. It would also allow restoration of a number of subsystems such as city water (very important). This could happen in the first 24 hours, post hurricane. As it is, if the hurricane is severe, it can take a week to get power. During that time, you have loads of ppl breaking into a number of homes.
You think putting and maintaining satellites would be cheaper?
For what?
putting power into a constantly shifting war zone? Yes.
For having to ship fuel into places like Iraq or Afghanistan? Yes. (keep in mind that if we are not transporting lots of fuel and generators, then we are able to move faster, quicker, etc. at a cheaper price.
For bringing into disaster areas that need LOTS OF POWER right away? Yes.
For possibly bringing power to a ship (or a naval vessel) that is incapacitated or simple needs more power that it can store quickly (say an ultra-cap)? Yes.
For bringing roughly stationary power to a location? Nope. At least not at this time.
Far too many ppl here assume that new advancements are cheaper than what they replace. What many fail to realize is that most of the big ideas were actually funded by federal levels. For example, the early railroads as well as roads in the USA were done by the feds. Likewise, the same is true of our coal and even nuke power plants. Just several days ago, I had a guy who was carping that I was pushing for space mining. For his POV it was all about TODAY's ECONOMIC issues. From my POV, it has always been about access to minerals and elements. Far too many of what we use in small quantities is from several countries that are not friendly to the west. In fact, that day, I found an article where Japan is very concerned that CHina is about to stop selling critical rare earth minerals, which at this time, they have a near monopoly on. It is possible that China will prevent other nations from having similar access to the cheap minerals.
What is needed is clear far thinking by our politicians. We had a great run of those back in the 30-70's, but have had several horrible presidents (reagan and W) combined with far too many decades of corrupt congresses.
hehehe; yeah; it was suppose to say "the DOD", but then mid sentence, I realized that FEMA could really use these as well. At that time, I only backed up over DOD. But hey, thanks for noticing and pointing that out.
The DOD, as well as FEMA, should be pushing to have several built for the America. This would actually enable more private launches, but also give the DOD a means to bring energy into areas that they need. Transportation of fuel is EXPENSIVE. The ability to bring power into a hurricane hit area will enable quick power. More importantly, the ability to beam energy will have to be developed. That would enable many of our construction and open pit mining vehicles to move off diesel. Basically, that would help to drive new innovations.
The report is weighing a total ban on exporting rare earth metals needed to produce circuitry in consumer electronics, such as smartphones, MP3 music players, liquid crystal displays, and advanced battery technologies. The problem? China currently produces more than 90 percent of the global supply for production of such electronics.
Perhaps more importantly, in respect to green technology initiatives, the ban will also give China control of the development of green technology with products like electronic or hybrid cars, wind turbines, and energy efficient light bulbs all reliant on rare earth metals.
If the above happens, then it will KILL manufactuering around the world. What is shows is that China is VERY much in a cold war with the west and reagan, Clinton, and W really fucked things up. Esp. W. More interesting, the west will either need to consider one of several different actions:
Accept that China is in control, which will lead to China invading a number of nations.
Go to war with China (which oddly, China is gearing up very quickly for that; their approach is not defensive, but offensive).
Find more of each of the various elements on this planet.
Look for sats with it, mine it and bring it here.
Personally, I want to see us looking amongst the solar system now for these elements. They are out there. More importantly, we CAN find it. I also suspect that we can find more of these around the earth, but they WILL be limited.
So here's a challenge: name something, anything, that can be mined in space and delivered to customers on earth more cost-effectively than we can just mine it on earth.
Any of the rare earth and a number of items that are dominantly found in china. As it is, they are already playing games with steel making minerals/elements and those are somewhat abundant, but China controls the market on them. BUT, china absolutely controls access to a number of rarer items that will likely be important to the future.
I would rather that we not allow idiots who have no ability to see the problems that are PROBABLE down the road, control our future. I am thankful that you are not a politician, and hope that you never decide to go there. We just got rid of an idiot that also lacked the ability to see future consequences of their actions.
First, the F-22 has been built. Further production was stopped. But, was it congress that stopped it? Nope. It was Gates that did it. Personally, I think that he is right. This is designed to repel a first strike from another super power. It is thought that if said country does strike, it will be with one mighty hit designed to take out America entirely. And it will be a first launch. We will have nearly 200 f-22's. 200 or 400 or even 600 will not matter in that situation. Instead, Gates stopped it and is focused on getting us out of W's wars. Once we are done, we will go back to development. He wants to develop another bomber around 2016 (actually, it looks like he may speed it up) and wants more powerful ABLs. The current ABL is designed for about 700 miles forward. Shooting into space, it is expected to do take out most of the sats and multiple military space stations that an invader will have in the medium earth orbit. Also, Gates is fighting against losing more of our nuclear launchers. Personally, I agree with him. MAD kept America and USSR from going to war. Once another country feels that it can "win" a nuclear war, I think that we can expect one to start.
You obviously have not thought this through, but what your argument IS the whole point of doing the private space systems. Look, NASA does not need to build launch vehicles. It needs CHEAP WAYS to get cargo and other vehicles into space. By having MULTIPLE companies providing launch services, we will see a fast lowering of the costs. For example, SpaceX is about to lower the costs greatly compared to the shuttle, EELV, Russia, and even China. Yet, I think that they will have a contender in about 3 years from Scaled. Once SS3 is built, human cargo (the really expensive one) will go up for a fraction of the price of SpaceX. At that point, we will likely see other companies work to lower the costs further for cargo by either building a bigger version of SS3/WK2, or perhaps building a track launcher (circular track built in western USA that accelerates a system to say mach 5-10 or so and then throws it upwards).
Why will these companies do it? Will it be because of NASA Business? Nope. Neither NASA NOR DOD have enough business to warrent that. BUT, NASA, DOD, Other nations, Tourists, and hopefully offworld mining WOULD HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH. So, how do build up these businesses? Tourism is but one part. Bigelow WANTS to do multiple space stations for different nations. Yes, they will almost certainly do a hotel for tourism. If we are very lucky, they will need to put several up there. That would indicate that business is good and prices are dropping. But Bigelow, like Elon Musk, have spoke about wanting to put us on the moon and mars. They will also want to explore asteroids. If the gov encourages this NOW, then the west will lead this (otherwise, it is likely to be Chinese gov. that will lead this).
Now, what would happen to NASA? They would focus on space experiments, new robotics, new exploration sats that private industry is not like to do, new telescopes, and new advanced SPACE propulsion (not launch). Basically, by encouraging private enterprise to jump into space, it will lower the costs for NASA to do the advanced things that they need to do. In addition, it would create a whole new industry similar to what the net did. We would see lots of money being invested into new start-ups. The best thing that can happen is to have a number of companies jumping into new niches all over space. In fact, I am guessing that it will make the net look positively minor in size. Hopefully, this time, president and congress will push a balanced budget amendment.
Not correct - during the past 2 years INR (Indian Rupee) has fluctuated between around 37 to 52 to a USD (right now it is around 48 - exchange rate changes almost daily).
The Ruppee IS fixed against the dollar. The reason why it was lowered was because good were expensive in India. When they started increasing the value against the dollar, IBM, Verizon, and a number of software companies threatened to pull out of there and return to the USA. As such, India put it back to 48.
More important, that is what lead India to announce that they were simply going to violate a number of patents against western drugs (and quietly have done other products as well). These items were too expensive. They were hoping to force western companies to do for India what they have done in China ($2 MS Windows; $100 drugs available for.50; etc). Both are sick; Worse, India (and more China) are destroying free trade with their policies. China WANTS to do that. But for India, they are making a mistake. One last thing. This was pointed out to me by several Indians that knew this. They have talked about the mistakes that India is doing, and are hoping that it will stop.
Who spoke of 50 billion? Under 500 million would get us a sundance AND a ba-330 added to the ISS (that includes the LV). Likewise, the MULTIPLE tugs will come if we offer up multiple contracts to de-orbit sats. And flea has it right. We NEED mutliple companies in this game. Not just the Boeings and l-marts. We need companies like the original scaled (now owned by Northrup), SpaceX, Armadillo, Bigelow, Blue Origin, etc. Basically, we want MULTIPLE providers in each space. That also means that at some point we need multiple providers of space stations. If we start the push for private into our orbit, then the rest will come. More importantly, we will see a real drop in price so that we can afford to go to the moon AND mars AND NEO asteroids (which is probably more important to America).
Slashdot Mirror
and yes, we do obey international convention. The treaties say that no weapon can be designed for the purpose of taking out somebodies vision. These lasers are NOT designed for that purpose. Just like many bombs are not designed to kill, there is collateral damage. The ATL was designed to DESTROY a target similar to how a bomb would work. Likewise, the ABL is designed to collapse a sidewall of a missile. If somebody 'hardens' it causes the collateral damage, how is that America's fault?
Weapons like this actually make an ICBM strike *more* likely against the US. If conventional war were to break out between the US and a country like China, with neither party really wanting a nuclear escalation but reserving their nukes as a deterrent, they'd be afraid that if they lost the ability to effectively shoot down aircraft over their territory they'd also lose the ability to launch ICBM's in case of escalation. So, at the first sign of the US gaining air superiority, they'd go ahead and launch ICBM's.
Not really. First, this is the ATL. It is a different craft with a different mission. It is designed to take out targets on the ground.
Second, for us to take out China's missile, we would have to have multiples of these craft located deep inside of this countries AND all over the world. The reason is that China has a number of boomers and is building 1-2 new nuclear boomers EACH YEAR. In fact, they will surpass America's count in the next 2 years. As it is, China now has boomers patroling both the American Atlantic and Pacific seaboards as well as the Mexican gulf (Venezuela has begun quietly allowing them to have port calls). We also know that China has at least 10 boomers, and will surpass it within 4 years (more likely 2). In addition, to be able to take out all of China's sites with this would require us to be in every country that surrounds China, with multiple aircraft (and russia would require at least 4 to 8 of these). Think we can swing that? Neither does China. TO be honest, we will probable need a lot more. China appears to be building new nuclear warheads. They restarted their factory last decade. They started their build-up before we decided anything about the ABLs.
Finally, the ABL shooting horizontally will have a range of around 500-700. It it probable that it would have a range far shorter over china due to their pollution. In addition, this craft will become more ineffective on 2'nd and third round since dust would have been kicked into the air.
Neither the ATL nor the ABL will be a threat to China's missiles.
Everyone sane enough to manage that task would be too sane to do a one-way mission.
And yet, most of the astronauts say that they would go. Interestingly, a number of the astronauts wanted to do Hubble, EVEN IF IT MEANT a real risk. In fact, everytime a person goes up in the shuttle, they know that they are putting it on the line. Why, even the guys who went to the moon, or launched for the first KNEW that they were putting on the line. They KNEW that it might be one-way. And yet, they did it. Just because somebody goes to mars does not mean that it will be a short death sentence or that it is a real one-way. It means that they may be there for 1 year, or for 10 years. And if they are there for 10 years, they may be able to come back once a base is built.
Wow, get angry much WindBourne?
Hmmm. Wow. Sorry about that. That really WAS very rude on my part. I was looking at my post and another that I did and just realized that my ex had gotten under my skin. Sorry about that. I really did take it out on you and should not have.
Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.
Well that is not really true. They will have plenty of CO2 there, as well as iron oxide from which they can break the oxygen from, esp. iron. But the CO2 is easily converted by plants (though will need to provide water or more likely some H2, and it will be slow). BTW, once we strip an O from CO2, we have CO which is really useful for combining with Iron.
And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years. Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?
Actually, that is not the idea. The idea is to send ppl there on a one-way to establish a forward base. Once established, it will be easy to bring in scientists. But the original ppl that go there would be to build out a place for others. With that said, I would be real surprised if the first group of ppl do not do all of it. That is, they will engineer and build future facilities, but will also build and service robots to search the planet.
Finally, the last rant was not about you. I had just read some of the neo-cons positions papers that want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and was thinking of a number of the neo-cons that put us in this hell have flipped their attitude recently about Afghanistan as well as going to the moon or mars. Drives me batty when these ppl back such operations as Iraq/Afghanistan for 6 years, but now want us out when we are close to finally driving AQ/Taliban into the ground (and we are, in spite of the garbage in the paper; that is why Taliban is getting very aggressive). Likewise, we need for ppl to be willing to take us to the moon and mars, but they are saying that these are waste of money. I will say that if we send ppl to mars and they are JUST to go there, do science, and die, then it will be a waste of money. BUT, if they go there and build out a place (obviously in the ground), then it will be worth it for the future, even if these ppl die.
The difference is that for orbital, you have to send raw material. On mars, you have lots of raw material to work with; Iron; CO2, H20, Nitrogen, etc. All of those items make settlements much cheaper, easier.
With that said, I think that the idea of ISS IS to get water and gases recycling and having very little waste. Perhaps at some point we will do some form of hydroponics there.
And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.
Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.
Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.
I have never understood why would go to such a remote location for only a year or two. I have suggested many times here that ppl should be sent on one-way missions. If we establish a forward base, THEN we can bring them back, if they desire. My guess is that anybody who goes there will want to stay. In the end, the hardest part will be to get them to be self sufficient in terms of O2, water, energy, food, and of course, some light weight manufacturing (esp. on robotics). That is not as hard as it sounds. In fact, I suspect that it will be easier to do that, than to build 2 way traffic.
That would be an interesting direction of investigation.
Yeah, we really need to investigate this better. The reason is that we investigate virus that show short-term symptoms. It took us forever to locate prions because we were so damn certain that only amino acids provided a map so were not looking there. Likewise, I believe that we are not seeing all the virus and bacteria because their SYMPTOMS are over LONG TIMELINES, rather than short ones. I have come to the conclusions that if we examine our DNA, we will find simiularities in ppl that live in geological similar areas, but have no other relations. I think that this will be more so say in America where you have ppl that are from radically different genetic make-up. For example, my wife is Indian and I am Scottish/Germanic/froggie/limie. My genetics should be different. But I think that since we have been living together, that we probably have swapped a few of these unknown virus and have actually had various cells mutated to be similar. Obviously if that gets into stem lines, then we see long term genetic shifts. By doing these studies, I think that it would be a useful way to find virus.
You have so many things wrong here that there is absolutely NO reason to try and correct you on it. Just so that you know, all virus incorporate their RNA/DNA back into your DNA. Some will actually excise snippets of your DNA out to replace theirs in there. And mutations are not just base pair changes, but also addition as well as deletions. Finally, just because a virus can hit any of the chromosomes does not preclude the ability to hit the y chromosomes.
Basically, they should be looking at the men that are from the same place (assuming that one of the two live in the exact same area and others ppl can be found). I think that they will find many of them have the same sets of mutations. The reason is that I believe that many of these mutations are from virus, not from random mutations. If from radiation/chemical (i.e. random), then you will not see the same mutations across ppl that exist in same area. But if from virus, you will see that many of these are similar (though possibly not in the exact same area of the strands).
Hopefully, the above would trigger a build out by private money. If so, that would be our "Internet" approach to creating jobs. Finally, it would allow NASA to get back to doing what it does best; R/D cutting edge tech, such as VASMIR, as well as focus on basic sciences. Hopefully, somebody will rethink the ISS. Can not believe that we killed the centrifuge. That was INSANE.
America, along with western EU, were the most innovative countries going. The reason is that we had the infrastructure to building ideas in a reasonable fashion. We had lots of cheap raw material and we encouraged it by pushing engineers. As such, it was the lone innovators that pushed thing. Also, the US gov had until 1982, pushed all sorts of RD for the basic science. America was primed to be a technical innovator.
But under reagan and then under W, America backed off from basic science RD. In addition, we have been allowing our manufacturing to flow to China and Software to India. Neither of these countries have the infrastructure that the west has, BUT they will get it. Once it is there, then you will see a resurgence in technical progress.
Quite simply a hurricane could knock out power for weeks if not months and a ground station that solar power is beamed to would not change that.
A simple ground station will do little to nothing. OTH, a set of portable smallish receivers brought in AFTER the hurricane and hooked into the transmissions lines in various places MIGHT work. Obviously, it would have to be studied. But, I noticed that you have not said why it can not work, other than to say that it can not. Exactly what do you base that on?
My dad lives near Stuart Florida. Many of the powerlines are actually up post hurricane. It is just not continuous. So, a crew in a truck can come and drop in receivers that they can then hook quickly to the various lines. It will not power everything, but it would bring up enough to enable rescuers and ppl to recover quickly. It would also allow restoration of a number of subsystems such as city water (very important). This could happen in the first 24 hours, post hurricane. As it is, if the hurricane is severe, it can take a week to get power. During that time, you have loads of ppl breaking into a number of homes.
For what?
Far too many ppl here assume that new advancements are cheaper than what they replace. What many fail to realize is that most of the big ideas were actually funded by federal levels. For example, the early railroads as well as roads in the USA were done by the feds. Likewise, the same is true of our coal and even nuke power plants. Just several days ago, I had a guy who was carping that I was pushing for space mining. For his POV it was all about TODAY's ECONOMIC issues. From my POV, it has always been about access to minerals and elements. Far too many of what we use in small quantities is from several countries that are not friendly to the west. In fact, that day, I found an article where Japan is very concerned that CHina is about to stop selling critical rare earth minerals, which at this time, they have a near monopoly on. It is possible that China will prevent other nations from having similar access to the cheap minerals.
What is needed is clear far thinking by our politicians. We had a great run of those back in the 30-70's, but have had several horrible presidents (reagan and W) combined with far too many decades of corrupt congresses.
hehehe; yeah; it was suppose to say "the DOD", but then mid sentence, I realized that FEMA could really use these as well. At that time, I only backed up over DOD. But hey, thanks for noticing and pointing that out.
The DOD, as well as FEMA, should be pushing to have several built for the America. This would actually enable more private launches, but also give the DOD a means to bring energy into areas that they need. Transportation of fuel is EXPENSIVE. The ability to bring power into a hurricane hit area will enable quick power. More importantly, the ability to beam energy will have to be developed. That would enable many of our construction and open pit mining vehicles to move off diesel. Basically, that would help to drive new innovations.
A draft report form Chinas Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released late last month, however, could set off the alarm bells in boardrooms around the world.
The report is weighing a total ban on exporting rare earth metals needed to produce circuitry in consumer electronics, such as smartphones, MP3 music players, liquid crystal displays, and advanced battery technologies. The problem? China currently produces more than 90 percent of the global supply for production of such electronics.
Perhaps more importantly, in respect to green technology initiatives, the ban will also give China control of the development of green technology with products like electronic or hybrid cars, wind turbines, and energy efficient light bulbs all reliant on rare earth metals.
If the above happens, then it will KILL manufactuering around the world. What is shows is that China is VERY much in a cold war with the west and reagan, Clinton, and W really fucked things up. Esp. W. More interesting, the west will either need to consider one of several different actions:
Personally, I want to see us looking amongst the solar system now for these elements. They are out there. More importantly, we CAN find it. I also suspect that we can find more of these around the earth, but they WILL be limited.
Odd; Those were made up names? 53
# pages, including Harry V. Ness
Mike Hunt is all over Nebraska.
And of course
So here's a challenge: name something, anything, that can be mined in space and delivered to customers on earth more cost-effectively than we can just mine it on earth.
Any of the rare earth and a number of items that are dominantly found in china. As it is, they are already playing games with steel making minerals/elements and those are somewhat abundant, but China controls the market on them. BUT, china absolutely controls access to a number of rarer items that will likely be important to the future.
I would rather that we not allow idiots who have no ability to see the problems that are PROBABLE down the road, control our future. I am thankful that you are not a politician, and hope that you never decide to go there. We just got rid of an idiot that also lacked the ability to see future consequences of their actions.
First, the F-22 has been built. Further production was stopped. But, was it congress that stopped it? Nope. It was Gates that did it. Personally, I think that he is right. This is designed to repel a first strike from another super power. It is thought that if said country does strike, it will be with one mighty hit designed to take out America entirely. And it will be a first launch. We will have nearly 200 f-22's. 200 or 400 or even 600 will not matter in that situation. Instead, Gates stopped it and is focused on getting us out of W's wars. Once we are done, we will go back to development. He wants to develop another bomber around 2016 (actually, it looks like he may speed it up) and wants more powerful ABLs. The current ABL is designed for about 700 miles forward. Shooting into space, it is expected to do take out most of the sats and multiple military space stations that an invader will have in the medium earth orbit. Also, Gates is fighting against losing more of our nuclear launchers. Personally, I agree with him. MAD kept America and USSR from going to war. Once another country feels that it can "win" a nuclear war, I think that we can expect one to start.
You obviously have not thought this through, but what your argument IS the whole point of doing the private space systems.
Look, NASA does not need to build launch vehicles. It needs CHEAP WAYS to get cargo and other vehicles into space. By having MULTIPLE companies providing launch services, we will see a fast lowering of the costs. For example, SpaceX is about to lower the costs greatly compared to the shuttle, EELV, Russia, and even China. Yet, I think that they will have a contender in about 3 years from Scaled. Once SS3 is built, human cargo (the really expensive one) will go up for a fraction of the price of SpaceX. At that point, we will likely see other companies work to lower the costs further for cargo by either building a bigger version of SS3/WK2, or perhaps building a track launcher (circular track built in western USA that accelerates a system to say mach 5-10 or so and then throws it upwards).
Why will these companies do it? Will it be because of NASA Business? Nope. Neither NASA NOR DOD have enough business to warrent that. BUT, NASA, DOD, Other nations, Tourists, and hopefully offworld mining WOULD HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH. So, how do build up these businesses? Tourism is but one part. Bigelow WANTS to do multiple space stations for different nations. Yes, they will almost certainly do a hotel for tourism. If we are very lucky, they will need to put several up there. That would indicate that business is good and prices are dropping. But Bigelow, like Elon Musk, have spoke about wanting to put us on the moon and mars. They will also want to explore asteroids. If the gov encourages this NOW, then the west will lead this (otherwise, it is likely to be Chinese gov. that will lead this).
Now, what would happen to NASA? They would focus on space experiments, new robotics, new exploration sats that private industry is not like to do, new telescopes, and new advanced SPACE propulsion (not launch). Basically, by encouraging private enterprise to jump into space, it will lower the costs for NASA to do the advanced things that they need to do. In addition, it would create a whole new industry similar to what the net did. We would see lots of money being invested into new start-ups. The best thing that can happen is to have a number of companies jumping into new niches all over space. In fact, I am guessing that it will make the net look positively minor in size. Hopefully, this time, president and congress will push a balanced budget amendment.
Not correct - during the past 2 years INR (Indian Rupee) has fluctuated between around 37 to 52 to a USD (right now it is around 48 - exchange rate changes almost daily).
.50; etc). Both are sick; Worse, India (and more China) are destroying free trade with their policies. China WANTS to do that. But for India, they are making a mistake. One last thing. This was pointed out to me by several Indians that knew this. They have talked about the mistakes that India is doing, and are hoping that it will stop.
The Ruppee IS fixed against the dollar. The reason why it was lowered was because good were expensive in India. When they started increasing the value against the dollar, IBM, Verizon, and a number of software companies threatened to pull out of there and return to the USA. As such, India put it back to 48.
More important, that is what lead India to announce that they were simply going to violate a number of patents against western drugs (and quietly have done other products as well). These items were too expensive. They were hoping to force western companies to do for India what they have done in China ($2 MS Windows; $100 drugs available for
Officially, the Indian rupee has a market determined exchange rate. However, the RBI trades actively in the USD/INR currency market to impact effective exchange rates. Thus, the currency regime in place for the Indian rupee with respect to the US dollar is a de facto controlled exchange rate. This is sometimes called a dirty or managed float. Other rates such as the EUR/INR and INR/JPY have volatilities that are typical of floating exchange rates.[5]
Who spoke of 50 billion? Under 500 million would get us a sundance AND a ba-330 added to the ISS (that includes the LV). Likewise, the MULTIPLE tugs will come if we offer up multiple contracts to de-orbit sats. And flea has it right. We NEED mutliple companies in this game. Not just the Boeings and l-marts. We need companies like the original scaled (now owned by Northrup), SpaceX, Armadillo, Bigelow, Blue Origin, etc. Basically, we want MULTIPLE providers in each space. That also means that at some point we need multiple providers of space stations. If we start the push for private into our orbit, then the rest will come. More importantly, we will see a real drop in price so that we can afford to go to the moon AND mars AND NEO asteroids (which is probably more important to America).