The REAL engineering challenges are right here on earth. Stop being a day dreamer and rollup your sleeves and address today's issues. Global Warming for example or if that is too mundane then how about cleaning CO2 from the atmosphere. How about scrubbing CO2 from coal plants. How about improving batter life, and shrinking batter size to be used in cars. How about developing algae as a fuel source for cars. How about removing heavy metals from our drinking supply and the oceans.
Funny that you picked these items.
Global Warming theory got a BIG boost because of WHAT GROUP? And much of the monitoring is done by which group and their innovations?
You want to scrub CO2 from coal plants? Why? I mean NASA would NEVER be interested in scrubbing excess CO2 from a limited amount of air.
Improving battery life? Yeah, I can not begin to imagine why NASA would help to improve either battery life, Fuel Cells, or even Solar Cells.
Algae for bio-fuels was being developed back in the 70's for O2 as well as fuel by which group? Oh, I forgot those 4 letters?
Finally, as to making water palatable, yeah, I just can not imagine NASA spending any money on making sure that water derived from various sources on the moon and mars would need to be pure, so they will have no interest in developing that kind of tech.
Thing is, the solutions to NASA's problems with space travel HAVE gone a long ways to helping our planet, and will continue to do so, it we let it.
Orion does not exist and yet we buy.
Dragon does not exist and again, we buy.
Heck, Tesla Sedan does not exist and ppl are buying.
So, yes, you CAN buy what does not exists.
By buying it now from Bigelow, it will push him to start his assembly line. He has slowed it down, waiting for launchers. By combining this with a push on the human launchers and we are looking at the private launches going cheap. Basically, we can continue to throw money all over the place (X-33, Ares I, etc) and constantly shift with the next admin, OR, we can at least cause the private industry to get started and then NASA can go back to dealing with the idiots in congress/admin.
that each owner has the ability to OPT-IN. The real issue is when they say that they will do regardless, then it will be time to switch away, OR bury the box elsewhere and simply use my remote control remoter.
they would simply stop accepting the browser at ALL OF THEIR SITES. If they did that, nearly all of the rest of the world would follow suite. NOBODY in the development world wants this demoniacal abortion. BUT, while MS continues to accept, then everybody else is forced to accept it.
This is a minimal amount of money for human rated launchers. Between SpaceX and Scaled Composites, this IS coming (Though to be honest, I would really like to see SpaceDev finish their work on their h-20).
What really IS needed IS a space taxi AND a tug. Russia has the idea correct. Augustine should be pushing Obama/NASA to buy several Bigelows to attach to the ISS. First buy the sundancer and attach it to the ISS to hold cargo (keep hatch closed except when needing to access). Then buy a BA-330 for human space. That is all that is needed to get them going in orbit. These are perfect for playing space taxis, if we attach a tug to these.
For a company that wants to take on MS, arguably a total monopoly that has cracks, they are doing things wrong. They need to port all of their apps to Linux SOON. I know, I know, they want Web Apps. BUT, they have items like Sketch and Google earth that should run better and faster on Linux if they have ANY hope of taking on MS. Also, the commercial versions MUST be cheaper on Linux than on Windows. Without that, they are simply spinning their wheels.
It was probably the lab part of the mix. I had a border collie, she was really easy to train and didn't seem like a slow learner. Oh, I am sorry. you misunderstood me. The border/lab mix is not stupid, just not as fast a learner as the husky. The husky is a VERY fast learner. Just seems to hate doing it over and over unless there is a treat. Then she is MORE than happy to do whatever. But the border/lab is happy to do whatever.
the reason is that he is defining breed intelligence as those animals that respond to man quickly and repeatidly. For example, my Siberian Husky is one of the fastest learners that I have seen amongst dogs. She picks up right away what I want. The problem is that if I try to get her to repeat it, esp. without a treat, she will not do it. Huskies are well known for their stubborness, so she would rate in the middle of the pack. OTH, another dog is a lab/border collie mix who takes longer to learn something, BUT will then want to repeat it easily. Yet, she would rate higher in this guys scoring.
Based on how this guy applies intelligence, the wolf is likely to score low, even though they are extremely intelligent from what I have seen. The wolves that I have seen others raising (we have a lot here in Colorado) are like huskies; fast learners and stubborn; Extreme stubborn if you are not alpha (which is a real mistake to be in any house with a wolf).
Now look. I realize that ppl like you LOVE to read and follow Faux news and almost certainly you just HATED thinking for yourself. It is hard for neo-cons to think intelligently (I love the part where you neo-cons bitch about the monster obama defict, but ignore the fact that 10 TRILLION DOLLARS of 12 TRILLION DEBT is owned by republicans). But the simply fact is, if you USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN FOR JUST 30 SECONDS, you will realize that 1500/car did not even make sense. The average time to put together a small car at GM was 17 hours (and 19.5 at toyota for same class of car; Toyota is not as efficient). So, you were thinking that a person who put together about 2 cars / week was really paying 3000 PER WEEK for health care or 12,000 PER MONTH? SERIOUSLY? YOU REALLY HONESTLY THOUGHT THAT? COULD YOU NOT DO SOME SIMPLE FUCKING MATH? You just accepted FAUX NEWS' and rush's garbage?
When you graduate high school, then come back and start posting again, dumass (see, I can act just like you) And try to learn some manners.
On the other hand, if a company's unionized workforce gets most of the credit for its profits, then shouldn't it get most of the blame for its losses?
Who in their right mind would say that the union gets credit for a companies PROFITS? If they had certain benefits and then gave them up to help the company, then yes, they deserve to take credit for HELPING the bottom line (and the union should also be wise enough to argue before giving them up to either have stock or that they get a part of the bonus). But otherwise, labor is labor. It is normally management that gets the bulk of the credit. AND to be fair, they almost always take it even if not deserved.
As to blame, so many in management want to blame EVERYBODY EXCEPT for themselves. Hell, look at the fact that bank management are getting all sorts of bonus even thought most were ran into the ground by the very same ppl. Insane. We should not have bailed out the banks, but if we were really that concerned about lending, we instead should have created new banks. Heck, the 1 trillion would be lent out already, instead of sitting on an account to make a banks bottom line look better or going to bonuses.
the total cost of employing someone at the imports were roughly $38 an hour compared to $78 am hour at GM.
Really? Please show those numbers BACKED UP by real accountants and real numbers (not something pulled out of the air on Faux News). Just a bit ago, It was argued by the federal gov. that GM and Chrysler unions had to lower their average pay from 36 to 34 which is the same pay as Toyota, Honda, etc had (IIRC, the average length of time by the employees was disregarded; GM and Chrysler had on average a much higher cumulative time).
As to the 78/hour figure, I believe that includes such things as retirement and medical health pay for retirees. OTH, other nations such as Germany and France have socialized medicine where a tax is placed on the good, but it does not count against the employee.
You going to blame the JANITOR as well? In the end this was PURELY about BAD MANAGEMENT. It is THEIR JOB to made decisions. It is THEIR job to MAKE MONEY. The vast majority of car companies HAVE UNIONS (all of the europeans) and YET, they make money. In fact, the best one currently is VW. They are going like gangbusters. Why? BECAUSE OF GOOD MANAGEMENT.
Both GM ans Chrysler were let off the hook on the 10's (or it is hundreds) of billions that they owed. Then we forced Chrysler to be sold to Fiat for next to nothing. Fiat Will keep it open for th next 2 years and then close all American plants (unless some are newer than theirs) after absorbing the IP. GM is currently forcing their partners to move operations to China, rather than keep them here. Chinese gov. is insisting on it (jingoism at its best). Worse, we are STILL subsidizing them with loans as well as CARS garbage. What should have happened is that GM and Chrysler SHOULD have been broken up into multiple companies and than allowed to compete. The problem with both of these was BAD CEOS. OTH, if you break them up, then you have multiple CEOs, which is likely to leave at least several of them doing OK to great. As it is, these companies will be gone within 5 years.
They will push to have at least one top reporter in each city in which a second or even third newspaper shut down. For example, I am here in Colorado. Rocky Mountain News closed earlier due to the bad management that was occurring. Basically, it ran the paper into the ground esp. with their handling of the internet (ugly step child). OTH, AOL has far far more of an idea of how to handle the internet. They could easily hire one or more of the RMN top reporters and re-start it. At this time, the main paper that remains, the Denver Post, is HORRIBLY ran. It has an online editor, Demetria Gallegos, who came from TV. Dgallegos gets on-line and will delete posts or ban anybody that disagrees with her personal POV. It is unlikely that DP will get their act together because all of their top ppl view the net as an enemy, not the future.
AOL, you can help speed things up. NewsPapers need to die.
Back in 79/80, when I was in my Genetics class, I had the weird idea as applied to cells. In particular, prof said that DNA was mostly empty space and did absolutely nothing. In addition, it was well known at that time that DNA and RNA only served as mapping and they had absolutely no other function. I told the prof that that kind of logic made zero sense. My rational was that cells will go towards the minimal energy usage and maintaining millions and even billions of base pairs is VERY expensive. I suggested in class that these HAD to do more than just sit around and be this way through "random mutation". Prof got mad at me and I lost a grade for that. 2 years later, a prof at CU happened on RNA cleaving itself. He got a Nobel for that.
Now, I say that evolution will prefer simpler and yet, you and others say that it is not the case; that we have loads of left over material in our body. Well, when growing up, an appendix and spleen were taught as being vestigial organs, with little to no use. Things have changed even just a few days ago. Just because WE do not know of a function for cells, tissues, or an organ, does not mean that it is not being used. I am guessing that nearly all tissues/organs have important uses, or they would slowly disappear. Life that has lower energy requirements is far more likely to survive than one that requires loads of them (think of large dinos vs. the small mammals).
Evolution prefers nothing, whatever puts the survival chances up is more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
Evolution prefers simplicity for EXACTLY that reason. In general, a simpler system will have a better chance of survival and reproduction. Otherwise, more energy going into survival means that it takes the creature longer periods of time before reproduction, which increases the odds of death. OTH, some amount of systems will move towards complexities.
BTW, if you think that complex systems are preferred, then humans and other creatures such as Great Apes, Whales, elephants, pigs, etc should occupy the majority of living space. All of animals do not even come close to that. The fact that prokaryotes (as simple as it gets WRT to living life) are the largest mass of all should speak volumes about evolution. SO, yes, it does strike me that Evolution DOES prefer.
Actually, I used to be an EMT back in the 80's. I can tell you that it was easier to deal with ppl that lost fingers or limbs because they RARELY felt it. Likewise, the guy who had been in a gasoline explosion (but his pain was to come; horrible injury to have). The reason is that their body regularly shut down in terms of pain. OTH, a compound fracture of the femur was wicked painful. The gal was screaming, but did not notice the bit that we drilled into her knee. The reason is that all the various muscles around the femur had contracted and the muscles were cramping. Severe pain, but not enough for her body to shut it down. Likewise, a nail had been pulled off and in another case, a piece of wood had gone under a nail (accident), etc. In each case, the pain was enormous, but not enough to shut them down.
I have always thought that Evolution prefers the minimal amounts needed for life (greater complexity is difficult to maintain UNLESS for a reason). As such, it would be easier on life if the same neuron conveys pain and itch. Yet, Evolution chose to do something different.
What it really means is that your dad is a part of an international crime ring and he really is a cracker, without your knowledge. He just felt that you did not have a clue so allowed you to play with his computer.
Soyuz modules can get 3 crew to orbit, and cost $50 million per launch.
Not sure (and am not going to google at this time), but I think that we pay 50 million PER PERSON, not per launch. while SpaceX is going to charge under a 100 million PER HUMAN RATED LAUNCH, which is either 6 or 7 ppl (35 million for a cargo rated launch). BIG difference in costs.
As to EU, rarely has EADS been on time or costs WRT their products. The 380 is a good example. My guess is that they are looking at.5-1 BILLION euro or more (and about 4-5 years).
So, you think that the SS2 will get to the ISS? the fact that SS2 will only orbit at 60 miles, while the ISS is between 200-300 miles will not matter? When SS3 comes out from Scaled Composites (and not virgin), then let us know. Keep in mind that virgin will be nothing more than an spaceliner. Scaled will be selling their SS3 and WK2 to other companies as well, once the traffic is developed. As to SS2, perhaps one to two other companies will be developed, but not likely.
This MAY be useful. Several different concepts for SMALL companies MIGHT be able to re-start RD programs and take them further. In particular, I am thinking that DreamChaser could benefit from this. Likewise, t-space would be a possibility. A possibility is that it would speed up SS3. The thought is that we already have several launchers and are about to gain more. If we have several different crew transports available to us and various launchers, then we will not be locked out of space. 50 million, let alone a portion of it, is not really enough for large companies like Boeing and LMart to do studies, let alone active development.
France helped America in the same way that Britain helped India. The only difference is that Britain was successful in their conquering India while France was not successful in getting America.
Slashdot Mirror
The REAL engineering challenges are right here on earth. Stop being a day dreamer and rollup your sleeves and address today's issues. Global Warming for example or if that is too mundane then how about cleaning CO2 from the atmosphere. How about scrubbing CO2 from coal plants. How about improving batter life, and shrinking batter size to be used in cars. How about developing algae as a fuel source for cars. How about removing heavy metals from our drinking supply and the oceans.
Funny that you picked these items. Global Warming theory got a BIG boost because of WHAT GROUP? And much of the monitoring is done by which group and their innovations?
You want to scrub CO2 from coal plants? Why? I mean NASA would NEVER be interested in scrubbing excess CO2 from a limited amount of air.
Improving battery life? Yeah, I can not begin to imagine why NASA would help to improve either battery life, Fuel Cells, or even Solar Cells.
Algae for bio-fuels was being developed back in the 70's for O2 as well as fuel by which group? Oh, I forgot those 4 letters?
Finally, as to making water palatable, yeah, I just can not imagine NASA spending any money on making sure that water derived from various sources on the moon and mars would need to be pure, so they will have no interest in developing that kind of tech. Thing is, the solutions to NASA's problems with space travel HAVE gone a long ways to helping our planet, and will continue to do so, it we let it.
Orion does not exist and yet we buy.
Dragon does not exist and again, we buy.
Heck, Tesla Sedan does not exist and ppl are buying.
So, yes, you CAN buy what does not exists.
By buying it now from Bigelow, it will push him to start his assembly line. He has slowed it down, waiting for launchers. By combining this with a push on the human launchers and we are looking at the private launches going cheap. Basically, we can continue to throw money all over the place (X-33, Ares I, etc) and constantly shift with the next admin, OR, we can at least cause the private industry to get started and then NASA can go back to dealing with the idiots in congress/admin.
that each owner has the ability to OPT-IN. The real issue is when they say that they will do regardless, then it will be time to switch away, OR bury the box elsewhere and simply use my remote control remoter.
they would simply stop accepting the browser at ALL OF THEIR SITES. If they did that, nearly all of the rest of the world would follow suite. NOBODY in the development world wants this demoniacal abortion. BUT, while MS continues to accept, then everybody else is forced to accept it.
This is a minimal amount of money for human rated launchers. Between SpaceX and Scaled Composites, this IS coming (Though to be honest, I would really like to see SpaceDev finish their work on their h-20).
What really IS needed IS a space taxi AND a tug. Russia has the idea correct. Augustine should be pushing Obama/NASA to buy several Bigelows to attach to the ISS. First buy the sundancer and attach it to the ISS to hold cargo (keep hatch closed except when needing to access). Then buy a BA-330 for human space. That is all that is needed to get them going in orbit. These are perfect for playing space taxis, if we attach a tug to these.
For a company that wants to take on MS, arguably a total monopoly that has cracks, they are doing things wrong. They need to port all of their apps to Linux SOON. I know, I know, they want Web Apps. BUT, they have items like Sketch and Google earth that should run better and faster on Linux if they have ANY hope of taking on MS. Also, the commercial versions MUST be cheaper on Linux than on Windows. Without that, they are simply spinning their wheels.
It was probably the lab part of the mix. I had a border collie, she was really easy to train and didn't seem like a slow learner.
Oh, I am sorry. you misunderstood me. The border/lab mix is not stupid, just not as fast a learner as the husky. The husky is a VERY fast learner. Just seems to hate doing it over and over unless there is a treat. Then she is MORE than happy to do whatever. But the border/lab is happy to do whatever.
the reason is that he is defining breed intelligence as those animals that respond to man quickly and repeatidly. For example, my Siberian Husky is one of the fastest learners that I have seen amongst dogs. She picks up right away what I want. The problem is that if I try to get her to repeat it, esp. without a treat, she will not do it. Huskies are well known for their stubborness, so she would rate in the middle of the pack. OTH, another dog is a lab/border collie mix who takes longer to learn something, BUT will then want to repeat it easily. Yet, she would rate higher in this guys scoring.
Based on how this guy applies intelligence, the wolf is likely to score low, even though they are extremely intelligent from what I have seen. The wolves that I have seen others raising (we have a lot here in Colorado) are like huskies; fast learners and stubborn; Extreme stubborn if you are not alpha (which is a real mistake to be in any house with a wolf).
That was interesting. According to the NPR report, the average GM hourly cost was 31.35/hour while Toyota's was 27/hour (not surprising, GM's is older and more experienced). So, now we look at what the report shows as high; Health care costs. GM's is 1500 while Toyota's is 200 (both per car). So, is that REALLY, the health care costs of JUST THE UNION WORKERS?
Last year the automaker, known for its innovative approach to health care, spent $5.2 billion to cover 1.1 million retirees, employees and their families. Prescription drugs cost GM $1.9 billion, and the company projects overall medical spending will increase by $400 million this year. That could be offset by a provision in the Medicare drug benefit to pick up a portion of firms' retiree drug costs. But the figure that prompted Wagoner to raise his voice is $1,500. That is the amount of money added to the price of every single vehicle to cover health care, a cost that his foreign competitors do not bear.
The answer is NO. That is the TOTAL HEALTH CARE OF THE COMPANY (the executives, management, retires, and of course, the union workers), being divided up amongst JUST THE UNION WORKERS.
Now look. I realize that ppl like you LOVE to read and follow Faux news and almost certainly you just HATED thinking for yourself. It is hard for neo-cons to think intelligently (I love the part where you neo-cons bitch about the monster obama defict, but ignore the fact that 10 TRILLION DOLLARS of 12 TRILLION DEBT is owned by republicans). But the simply fact is, if you USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN FOR JUST 30 SECONDS, you will realize that 1500/car did not even make sense. The average time to put together a small car at GM was 17 hours (and 19.5 at toyota for same class of car; Toyota is not as efficient). So, you were thinking that a person who put together about 2 cars / week was really paying 3000 PER WEEK for health care or 12,000 PER MONTH? SERIOUSLY? YOU REALLY HONESTLY THOUGHT THAT? COULD YOU NOT DO SOME SIMPLE FUCKING MATH? You just accepted FAUX NEWS' and rush's garbage?
When you graduate high school, then come back and start posting again, dumass (see, I can act just like you) And try to learn some manners.
On the other hand, if a company's unionized workforce gets most of the credit for its profits, then shouldn't it get most of the blame for its losses?
Who in their right mind would say that the union gets credit for a companies PROFITS? If they had certain benefits and then gave them up to help the company, then yes, they deserve to take credit for HELPING the bottom line (and the union should also be wise enough to argue before giving them up to either have stock or that they get a part of the bonus). But otherwise, labor is labor. It is normally management that gets the bulk of the credit. AND to be fair, they almost always take it even if not deserved.
As to blame, so many in management want to blame EVERYBODY EXCEPT for themselves. Hell, look at the fact that bank management are getting all sorts of bonus even thought most were ran into the ground by the very same ppl. Insane. We should not have bailed out the banks, but if we were really that concerned about lending, we instead should have created new banks. Heck, the 1 trillion would be lent out already, instead of sitting on an account to make a banks bottom line look better or going to bonuses.
the total cost of employing someone at the imports were roughly $38 an hour compared to $78 am hour at GM.
Really? Please show those numbers BACKED UP by real accountants and real numbers (not something pulled out of the air on Faux News). Just a bit ago, It was argued by the federal gov. that GM and Chrysler unions had to lower their average pay from 36 to 34 which is the same pay as Toyota, Honda, etc had (IIRC, the average length of time by the employees was disregarded; GM and Chrysler had on average a much higher cumulative time).
As to the 78/hour figure, I believe that includes such things as retirement and medical health pay for retirees. OTH, other nations such as Germany and France have socialized medicine where a tax is placed on the good, but it does not count against the employee.
You going to blame the JANITOR as well? In the end this was PURELY about BAD MANAGEMENT. It is THEIR JOB to made decisions. It is THEIR job to MAKE MONEY. The vast majority of car companies HAVE UNIONS (all of the europeans) and YET, they make money. In fact, the best one currently is VW. They are going like gangbusters. Why? BECAUSE OF GOOD MANAGEMENT.
Both GM ans Chrysler were let off the hook on the 10's (or it is hundreds) of billions that they owed. Then we forced Chrysler to be sold to Fiat for next to nothing. Fiat Will keep it open for th next 2 years and then close all American plants (unless some are newer than theirs) after absorbing the IP. GM is currently forcing their partners to move operations to China, rather than keep them here. Chinese gov. is insisting on it (jingoism at its best). Worse, we are STILL subsidizing them with loans as well as CARS garbage. What should have happened is that GM and Chrysler SHOULD have been broken up into multiple companies and than allowed to compete. The problem with both of these was BAD CEOS. OTH, if you break them up, then you have multiple CEOs, which is likely to leave at least several of them doing OK to great. As it is, these companies will be gone within 5 years.
They will push to have at least one top reporter in each city in which a second or even third newspaper shut down. For example, I am here in Colorado. Rocky Mountain News closed earlier due to the bad management that was occurring. Basically, it ran the paper into the ground esp. with their handling of the internet (ugly step child). OTH, AOL has far far more of an idea of how to handle the internet. They could easily hire one or more of the RMN top reporters and re-start it. At this time, the main paper that remains, the Denver Post, is HORRIBLY ran. It has an online editor, Demetria Gallegos, who came from TV. Dgallegos gets on-line and will delete posts or ban anybody that disagrees with her personal POV. It is unlikely that DP will get their act together because all of their top ppl view the net as an enemy, not the future.
AOL, you can help speed things up. NewsPapers need to die.
Back in 79/80, when I was in my Genetics class, I had the weird idea as applied to cells. In particular, prof said that DNA was mostly empty space and did absolutely nothing. In addition, it was well known at that time that DNA and RNA only served as mapping and they had absolutely no other function. I told the prof that that kind of logic made zero sense. My rational was that cells will go towards the minimal energy usage and maintaining millions and even billions of base pairs is VERY expensive. I suggested in class that these HAD to do more than just sit around and be this way through "random mutation". Prof got mad at me and I lost a grade for that. 2 years later, a prof at CU happened on RNA cleaving itself. He got a Nobel for that.
Now, I say that evolution will prefer simpler and yet, you and others say that it is not the case; that we have loads of left over material in our body. Well, when growing up, an appendix and spleen were taught as being vestigial organs, with little to no use. Things have changed even just a few days ago. Just because WE do not know of a function for cells, tissues, or an organ, does not mean that it is not being used. I am guessing that nearly all tissues/organs have important uses, or they would slowly disappear. Life that has lower energy requirements is far more likely to survive than one that requires loads of them (think of large dinos vs. the small mammals).
Evolution prefers nothing, whatever puts the survival chances up is more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
Evolution prefers simplicity for EXACTLY that reason. In general, a simpler system will have a better chance of survival and reproduction. Otherwise, more energy going into survival means that it takes the creature longer periods of time before reproduction, which increases the odds of death. OTH, some amount of systems will move towards complexities.
BTW, if you think that complex systems are preferred, then humans and other creatures such as Great Apes, Whales, elephants, pigs, etc should occupy the majority of living space. All of animals do not even come close to that. The fact that prokaryotes (as simple as it gets WRT to living life) are the largest mass of all should speak volumes about evolution. SO, yes, it does strike me that Evolution DOES prefer.
Actually, I used to be an EMT back in the 80's. I can tell you that it was easier to deal with ppl that lost fingers or limbs because they RARELY felt it. Likewise, the guy who had been in a gasoline explosion (but his pain was to come; horrible injury to have). The reason is that their body regularly shut down in terms of pain. OTH, a compound fracture of the femur was wicked painful. The gal was screaming, but did not notice the bit that we drilled into her knee. The reason is that all the various muscles around the femur had contracted and the muscles were cramping. Severe pain, but not enough for her body to shut it down. Likewise, a nail had been pulled off and in another case, a piece of wood had gone under a nail (accident), etc. In each case, the pain was enormous, but not enough to shut them down.
I have always thought that Evolution prefers the minimal amounts needed for life (greater complexity is difficult to maintain UNLESS for a reason). As such, it would be easier on life if the same neuron conveys pain and itch. Yet, Evolution chose to do something different.
I wonder what was the stimuli for that?
What it really means is that your dad is a part of an international crime ring and he really is a cracker, without your knowledge. He just felt that you did not have a clue so allowed you to play with his computer.
Soyuz modules can get 3 crew to orbit, and cost $50 million per launch.
.5-1 BILLION euro or more (and about 4-5 years).
Not sure (and am not going to google at this time), but I think that we pay 50 million PER PERSON, not per launch. while SpaceX is going to charge under a 100 million PER HUMAN RATED LAUNCH, which is either 6 or 7 ppl (35 million for a cargo rated launch). BIG difference in costs.
As to EU, rarely has EADS been on time or costs WRT their products. The 380 is a good example. My guess is that they are looking at
So, you think that the SS2 will get to the ISS? the fact that SS2 will only orbit at 60 miles, while the ISS is between 200-300 miles will not matter? When SS3 comes out from Scaled Composites (and not virgin), then let us know. Keep in mind that virgin will be nothing more than an spaceliner. Scaled will be selling their SS3 and WK2 to other companies as well, once the traffic is developed. As to SS2, perhaps one to two other companies will be developed, but not likely.
This MAY be useful. Several different concepts for SMALL companies MIGHT be able to re-start RD programs and take them further. In particular, I am thinking that DreamChaser could benefit from this. Likewise, t-space would be a possibility. A possibility is that it would speed up SS3. The thought is that we already have several launchers and are about to gain more. If we have several different crew transports available to us and various launchers, then we will not be locked out of space. 50 million, let alone a portion of it, is not really enough for large companies like Boeing and LMart to do studies, let alone active development.
Simply run bind9 on your system. Comcast will not stop you.
Only if you know they are coming. OTH, if they are invisible to your radar and are quiet, then not a problem.
France helped America in the same way that Britain helped India. The only difference is that Britain was successful in their conquering India while France was not successful in getting America.