That's like telling Columbus to go swimming in the atlantic becuase it is good for him to devlope those skills so he can sail to the new world. Come on. We have already devloped sold stepping stones in near earth orbit. What is the shuttle developing in near earth orbits now? Nothing, they are studing complete crap cause the NASA officials can't come up with anything better to justify the flights. The columbia did not got into orbit to study ants becuase studying ants was worth going into orbit, they studied ants cause they couldn't come up with anything better to do on the shuttle. NASA is ready for the next step but they quite frankly don't have the balls to actually risks thier astronauts lives on worth causes. They also lack the appollo teams ability to actually fix there own problems in space. In the days of apollo, your space ship broke, you coudl rpobably fix it. The shuttle is unfortunately so complicated that if it breaks, you might as well put your heqhead between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye cause your screwed.
The reason the american deaths in the spae program are more well known is becuase they were better publicised. We had an accident, the american ppl instantly knew. The russians had one, they covered it up. No one really knows how many cosmonauts died in space. Probably more than 4 though. Through out the 60's and 70's, there were supposeldy reports of communications between russia and capsules that they basically lost in space.
"why has a profitable private space business/exploration model been found?"
Maybe becuase one doesn't exist. People love to compare the new world to space, but the problem is they are very very important differences. The first was the fact that the new world already had an indiginous(sic?) population that was explotiable. The second was the fact that the new world was literally overflowing with gold. It was profitable to send ships there, not for reasons of industry or developement, but simply becuase it was the equivalent of a large bank. Anyone with a handful of guns and a big enough ship could steal as much they wanted. The reason trips to the new world became privatized so quickly is because it was believed that there was much wealth that was so easy to access. Basically, the immediate benefits (historically, business has always been short sighted) very obviously ouweighed the risks. Most to the early explorers and many of the colonists all went "to get rich quick." Even then the first 100 years or so was dominated almost exclusively by state sponsored explorers.
Now look at space. It has about the same risks, the same costs, etc BUT without the obvious benefits. Imagine if cortez conquered the aztecs only to find that the entire empire's wealth consisted of nothing more than worthless rock. Do you think the spanish would really have built a new world empire if they didn't think the benefits of one were so obvious? How do expect to make money off space? Mining the moon? It is far cheaper to mine the earth. Pure science is not going to bring investors. Secondly, there is the fact that there was competition when it came to the new world. If you didn't do it, your enemies would have. No such competition exists in space. China is decades away from colonizing space, the EU is even farther behind. There's no rush. Lastly, there is the fact that we are technoloigically not up to the task at all. We could build colonies on the moon. For what purpose, that's anyones guess. The real material wealth of space isn't on the moon. It is at mars and the asteroid belt and Jupiter. We are no where near where we need to be technologically to get there effeciently let alone set up a true colony. Imagine if instead of sailing to the new world, the only way to reach it was by riding a horse. That is basically how it is with the space program. The only difference is you have to carry all your supplies on that horse. When the explorers got the new world, they initially didn't have to build colonies, the natives already had. They just had to steal them. In space you got to build it all yourself. Not only can no company afford to sponsor that much technological research, no counrty can either (at the moment). Most of the comercial space attempts you have seen so far have been somewhat silly from a business aspect. They are developing a technology with the hopes that sometime in the future, someone will come up with a profitable use for it. Once they accomplish it and discover that as far as near earth stuff goes there is no comercial use for it, it will probably come to an end.
To answer your question, we havent goen into space for the same reason we never really colonized antartica: becuase no one wants to live in hell and there is no way to convince people that space is a land of milk and honey. No one wants to live in a place where they know they won't eventually be better off. Maybe if the standard of living falls on earth to the point that living in a barren rusty frozen wasteland is preferable is to living on earth, people will start going to the moon and mars but at the moment, quite honestly, what's the point? (Note: phantom killer asteroid is not going to scare people into doing it.)
Actually recessions are more long term. If you want to know why we are in recession you have to look back 5-10 years. Who was president back then??? As to the tax cut, we haven't even felt its effects yet (we probably won't until some time next year at least - and it probably won't be good.)
Hate to say it dude, but the language most spoken on earth is I believe Chinese. They will probably beat us both to mars as well. In addition, if the space program isnt broke why do the russians keep saying that they will have to stop sending rockets up without immediate money from NASA. Our human grade tranpsot system, namely the shuttles, is the best on earth, even better than that cheap rip off you built. The 'hurling into space a t afraction of the cost' is only one aspect. You also have to look at how up to date the tchnology is. Our shuttles may be more expensive but with the newest upgrades, they are technologically decades ahaead of your rockets. When is the last tiem the russians did a real important experiment in space? When was the last time the russians put a good telescope into space (Hubble, Chandra, we have a whole slew of good ones)? When was the last time the russians sent a probe into space. We have had pathfinder, galileo, and that one who went to the asteroid. Where are the russian ones? We are way ahead of you in everything except the economics of getting a person into space and a little space station tech (your space station tech is over ten years old, while ours is a bit more uptodate though unproven). As to being always ahead. WHo developed the shuttle first? We did. Yours is a cheap knock off. We got to the moon? The russians haven't even done that yet. Who has an active probe program? We do, you don't. With the exception of playing around with mir, and becoming glorified delivery boys, your space program is a joke. As to the language of the solar system, it will be mathematics. Either that or chinese and english. Our space program is pushing the boundaries of science, your spacve program is pushing the warrenties of your equipment.
The x in my statement referred to an amount of fuel it would take to reach a near eath object like the moon. If it was going to mars it would be economical but since it is only going to the moon, it is only slightly economical. Sorry about the confusion.
Actually, while uranium does exist in a relatively abundant quantity here one earth, there are only minute (read 'unusable') quantities here on earth. As such it stand to reason that while there may be supplies of uranium around the solar system, plutonium does not exist in any usuable quantities in the solar system. As such, we will most likely always have to produce as opposed to mining it.
And what if its gets wiped out by micro meteors 14 months into its journey. One good pebble coudl turn one of those solar panels into a big hunk of grabage.
I bet we will get back to the moon first. I can see it now: the EU's probe is getting close a year from now and is only 3 months away from the moon when we launch our own probe, it gets there in four days, runs through its entire mission, and returns back to earth, all before the EU's rockets gets there. Better yet, we could wait 9 months, set up a probe that does the same experiements/observations as the EU's, send it, have it run them, and get it back to earth all before the eu's probe even gets there.
Fish the american way: with dynamite! Go to space the american way: with a big ass rocket. Travel through space the american way: with another big ass rocket. When your mission is doomed, die the american way: in an explosion! Better to go out with a bang!
Actually, I think the word 'land' is a bit of a misnomer. If I remember the history channel shows correctly, the word 'crash' would be the word to use.
Then why is there space program broke and little more than a glorified delivery boy while ours is building a space station? Actually, we could have gone to space before the russians did. We had better rockets, etc and we had the technological know how. We just couldn't figure out any reason to go to space and so we didn't develope it. If our military had come up with a reason, then we would have beaten you.
the fact they immediatley start yelling "we're all going to die!" and then report the probability as being astronomically low. If an asterod pops up with a 1 in 2 chance of hitting us, then panic. But when you have a greater liklihood of being kicked in the ass by a midget than you do of getting hit, don't tell us.
Cyber warfare would thus become a reality. You pay someone to write viruses specifically to porpagate on a certain businesses machines and then alert the feds. They get fined; you win.
Any solution that involves me paying any type or amount of money is a bad one. Any solution that gives me free shit is a good one. Any solution that makes me pay for everything is hellish. Any solution that gives me all the free shit I could ever want is utopian.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like telling Columbus to go swimming in the atlantic becuase it is good for him to devlope those skills so he can sail to the new world. Come on. We have already devloped sold stepping stones in near earth orbit. What is the shuttle developing in near earth orbits now? Nothing, they are studing complete crap cause the NASA officials can't come up with anything better to justify the flights. The columbia did not got into orbit to study ants becuase studying ants was worth going into orbit, they studied ants cause they couldn't come up with anything better to do on the shuttle. NASA is ready for the next step but they quite frankly don't have the balls to actually risks thier astronauts lives on worth causes. They also lack the appollo teams ability to actually fix there own problems in space. In the days of apollo, your space ship broke, you coudl rpobably fix it. The shuttle is unfortunately so complicated that if it breaks, you might as well put your heqhead between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye cause your screwed.
The reason the american deaths in the spae program are more well known is becuase they were better publicised. We had an accident, the american ppl instantly knew. The russians had one, they covered it up. No one really knows how many cosmonauts died in space. Probably more than 4 though. Through out the 60's and 70's, there were supposeldy reports of communications between russia and capsules that they basically lost in space.
The easiest way to create a job and create wealth for other people is by quiting your own job so someone else can do it.
"why has a profitable private space business/exploration model been found?"
Maybe becuase one doesn't exist. People love to compare the new world to space, but the problem is they are very very important differences. The first was the fact that the new world already had an indiginous(sic?) population that was explotiable. The second was the fact that the new world was literally overflowing with gold. It was profitable to send ships there, not for reasons of industry or developement, but simply becuase it was the equivalent of a large bank. Anyone with a handful of guns and a big enough ship could steal as much they wanted. The reason trips to the new world became privatized so quickly is because it was believed that there was much wealth that was so easy to access. Basically, the immediate benefits (historically, business has always been short sighted) very obviously ouweighed the risks. Most to the early explorers and many of the colonists all went "to get rich quick." Even then the first 100 years or so was dominated almost exclusively by state sponsored explorers.
Now look at space. It has about the same risks, the same costs, etc BUT without the obvious benefits. Imagine if cortez conquered the aztecs only to find that the entire empire's wealth consisted of nothing more than worthless rock. Do you think the spanish would really have built a new world empire if they didn't think the benefits of one were so obvious? How do expect to make money off space? Mining the moon? It is far cheaper to mine the earth. Pure science is not going to bring investors. Secondly, there is the fact that there was competition when it came to the new world. If you didn't do it, your enemies would have. No such competition exists in space. China is decades away from colonizing space, the EU is even farther behind. There's no rush. Lastly, there is the fact that we are technoloigically not up to the task at all. We could build colonies on the moon. For what purpose, that's anyones guess. The real material wealth of space isn't on the moon. It is at mars and the asteroid belt and Jupiter. We are no where near where we need to be technologically to get there effeciently let alone set up a true colony. Imagine if instead of sailing to the new world, the only way to reach it was by riding a horse. That is basically how it is with the space program. The only difference is you have to carry all your supplies on that horse. When the explorers got the new world, they initially didn't have to build colonies, the natives already had. They just had to steal them. In space you got to build it all yourself. Not only can no company afford to sponsor that much technological research, no counrty can either (at the moment). Most of the comercial space attempts you have seen so far have been somewhat silly from a business aspect. They are developing a technology with the hopes that sometime in the future, someone will come up with a profitable use for it. Once they accomplish it and discover that as far as near earth stuff goes there is no comercial use for it, it will probably come to an end.
To answer your question, we havent goen into space for the same reason we never really colonized antartica: becuase no one wants to live in hell and there is no way to convince people that space is a land of milk and honey. No one wants to live in a place where they know they won't eventually be better off. Maybe if the standard of living falls on earth to the point that living in a barren rusty frozen wasteland is preferable is to living on earth, people will start going to the moon and mars but at the moment, quite honestly, what's the point? (Note: phantom killer asteroid is not going to scare people into doing it.)
Actually recessions are more long term. If you want to know why we are in recession you have to look back 5-10 years. Who was president back then??? As to the tax cut, we haven't even felt its effects yet (we probably won't until some time next year at least - and it probably won't be good.)
Scott Adams has been pointing out that managers never listen to engineers for years...
The RIAA will collect royalities on sound, air, and anyone who makes any type of sound will be sued aas pirates.
SCO: All your Linux belong to us.
IBM: I'm in your face, suing your dudes...
SCO: That's no fair!
IBM: noob
Yeah it's retarded but I am too damn tired to be funny.
Hate to say it dude, but the language most spoken on earth is I believe Chinese. They will probably beat us both to mars as well. In addition, if the space program isnt broke why do the russians keep saying that they will have to stop sending rockets up without immediate money from NASA. Our human grade tranpsot system, namely the shuttles, is the best on earth, even better than that cheap rip off you built. The 'hurling into space a t afraction of the cost' is only one aspect. You also have to look at how up to date the tchnology is. Our shuttles may be more expensive but with the newest upgrades, they are technologically decades ahaead of your rockets. When is the last tiem the russians did a real important experiment in space? When was the last time the russians put a good telescope into space (Hubble, Chandra, we have a whole slew of good ones)? When was the last time the russians sent a probe into space. We have had pathfinder, galileo, and that one who went to the asteroid. Where are the russian ones? We are way ahead of you in everything except the economics of getting a person into space and a little space station tech (your space station tech is over ten years old, while ours is a bit more uptodate though unproven). As to being always ahead. WHo developed the shuttle first? We did. Yours is a cheap knock off. We got to the moon? The russians haven't even done that yet. Who has an active probe program? We do, you don't. With the exception of playing around with mir, and becoming glorified delivery boys, your space program is a joke. As to the language of the solar system, it will be mathematics. Either that or chinese and english. Our space program is pushing the boundaries of science, your spacve program is pushing the warrenties of your equipment.
The x in my statement referred to an amount of fuel it would take to reach a near eath object like the moon. If it was going to mars it would be economical but since it is only going to the moon, it is only slightly economical. Sorry about the confusion.
unuasable quatities of plutonium on earth
Actually, while uranium does exist in a relatively abundant quantity here one earth, there are only minute (read 'unusable') quantities here on earth. As such it stand to reason that while there may be supplies of uranium around the solar system, plutonium does not exist in any usuable quantities in the solar system. As such, we will most likely always have to produce as opposed to mining it.
And what if its gets wiped out by micro meteors 14 months into its journey. One good pebble coudl turn one of those solar panels into a big hunk of grabage.
I bet we will get back to the moon first. I can see it now: the EU's probe is getting close a year from now and is only 3 months away from the moon when we launch our own probe, it gets there in four days, runs through its entire mission, and returns back to earth, all before the EU's rockets gets there. Better yet, we could wait 9 months, set up a probe that does the same experiements/observations as the EU's, send it, have it run them, and get it back to earth all before the eu's probe even gets there.
In arrogant france, mimes watch you!
Fish the american way: with dynamite! Go to space the american way: with a big ass rocket. Travel through space the american way: with another big ass rocket. When your mission is doomed, die the american way: in an explosion! Better to go out with a bang!
Actually, I think the word 'land' is a bit of a misnomer. If I remember the history channel shows correctly, the word 'crash' would be the word to use.
Then why is there space program broke and little more than a glorified delivery boy while ours is building a space station? Actually, we could have gone to space before the russians did. We had better rockets, etc and we had the technological know how. We just couldn't figure out any reason to go to space and so we didn't develope it. If our military had come up with a reason, then we would have beaten you.
It is only slightly more economical becuase teh ion engine costs almost as much to build as a rocket with x amount off fuel.
It took the apollo astronauts four days to get to the moon and four days to get back.
Plus its overpriced and not meant for travel beyond the local neighborhood.
Aren't there programs avaliable that will convert a wma to an mp3?
the fact they immediatley start yelling "we're all going to die!" and then report the probability as being astronomically low. If an asterod pops up with a 1 in 2 chance of hitting us, then panic. But when you have a greater liklihood of being kicked in the ass by a midget than you do of getting hit, don't tell us.
Cyber warfare would thus become a reality. You pay someone to write viruses specifically to porpagate on a certain businesses machines and then alert the feds. They get fined; you win.
Any solution that involves me paying any type or amount of money is a bad one. Any solution that gives me free shit is a good one. Any solution that makes me pay for everything is hellish. Any solution that gives me all the free shit I could ever want is utopian.